|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 242 Records
-
1980 (4) TMI 162 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... payment was really income of the assessee. According to the assessee it never admitted that such payment was really income of the assessee. As a matter of fact, the assessee had accounted for the payment of income-tax in the cash book as well as in the ledger and this amount had not been debited in the books of account. Under the circumstances, it does not stand to reason that the aforesaid amount could be income of the assessee. From the aforesaid discussion and looking to the entire material on record it is not proved that there was fraud or gross or wilful neglect on the part of the assessee in not returning its assessed income. On behalf of the Revenue, no positive evidence was brought on record to establish that there was conscious concealment of income by the assessee. Under the circumstances, the AAC was not correct in sustaining the penalty of Rs. 3,000. 9. For the reasons discussed above, the impugned penalty order is cancelled. 10. In the result the appeal succeeds.
-
1980 (4) TMI 161 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... tative supported the order of the AAC. 3. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The facts stated in the order of the AAC also find support from the affidavit filed by Sri Bhanwar Lal, Karta of the HUF. The affidavit filed by the Karta remained uncontroverted. From the facts stated in the order of the AAC and also from the contents of the affidavit, it is clear that the assessee was ignorant of the provisions of the WT Act. As and when he came to know about the liability to file the wealth-tax returns, the same were filed. The assessee also used to remain ill and was not in a position to work properly. Looking to the aforesaid facts and entirety of the circumstances, in our opinion there were reasonable causes which prevented the assessee from filing the returns. So the finding of the ld. AAC confirming the order of the WTO is not correct. Accordingly, the impugned orders of penalty are cancelled. 4. In the result both the appeals are allowed.
-
1980 (4) TMI 160 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee to produce confirmation from his previous counsel. The explanation given by the assessee seems to be quite reasonable. From the material on record, it is clear that there was no negligence on the part of the assessee in not filing the return within time. In the present case on account of mistake of the counsel the return could not be filed, by the assessee within time. Looking to the aforesaid facts and entirety of circumstances, in my opinion, there were reasonable causes which prevented the assessee from filing the return in time. In any view of the matter, there is no positive evidence on record to establish that the assessee consciously failed to file the return in time. It is also not established that the conduct of the assessee has been contumacious or dishonest. Thus, in my opinion, the finding of the learned AAC is not correct. The impugned order of penalty is liable to be cancelled, and accordingly it is cancelled. 7. In the result, the appeal succeeds.
-
1980 (4) TMI 159 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... car had been used for the purpose of business only. It was concluded by the authorities below that the car was put to personal use also. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that the car had done long-distance travel between Indore and Bombay for transportation of gum and for that reason bulk purchase of petrol had been made and the conclusion drawn by the authorities below was not justified. It was further pointed out that the Jeep was used entirely for the purpose of business and the expenditure incurred was largely on the Jeep, being Rs. 18,790 out of the total amount of Rs. 29,586. Considering the facts, we feel that the authorities below did proceed under some misconception. The disallowance of 1/4th of the expenditure appears to us to be rather high. We would reduce it to 1/6th considering that the Jeep was largely used for the purpose of business and the car may have occasionally been used for non-business purposes. 9. In the result the appeal succeeds partially.
-
1980 (4) TMI 158 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... red to be filed the HUF. It was submitted that it was under the above mis-apprehension that the assessee could not file an estimate under s. 212 (3A) of the IT Act. 5. In our opinion, there is force in the contention of ld. counsel. The fact that the notice of advance-tax in the name of Shri Satpal Sharma, individual, was received by him during his life-time and on account of his death on 25th Aug., 1972 the other members of the HUF could have a bona fide belief that the notice of advance-tax in fact pertains to Shri Sharma in his individual capacity and did not relate to the HUF. In our opinion, this constituted a reasonable cause which prevented the assessee to file an estimate of advance-tax under s. 212(3A) of the IT Act. In the circumstances mentioned above it is not a fit case for the levy of any penalty under s. 273(c) of the IT Act. Accordingly, we cancel the penalty of Rs. 1,600 under s. 273(c) which has been upheld by the AAC. 6. In the result the appeal is allowed.
-
1980 (4) TMI 157 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... address. It was pleaded that the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A) on the date of hearing as the service of the notices of hearing was not affected on the assessee. It was further pleaded that even if the CIT(A) wanted to dispose of the appeals without the presence of the assessee, he should have recorded his findings on the merits of these appeals as per the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 4. In our opinion, the order of the CIT(A) does not rest on proper foundation. There is change in the address given by the assessee in the memo of appeal and in the absence of service of notices, the assessee, naturally, could not appear on the date of hearing. In these circumstances, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to his file with the direction that he should issue a fresh notice of hearing to the assessee and dispose of the appeals on merits after hearing the parties. 5. In the result, for statistical purposes, both the appeals are allowed.
-
1980 (4) TMI 156 - ITAT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... at the ITAT has neither put any interpretation on any section of the Act nor has tried to import into the definition of the word lsquo salary rsquo anything on its own. It has given a plain meaning to the word salary rsquo as is found out in s. 17(1)(ii) of the Act. the word lsquo salary rsquo as per s. 17 (1)(ii) has been defined to include any annuity or pension and that is what precisely, the Tribunal has read and held. 3. The order of the ITAT being based on a plain and simple reading of a provision of an enactment, it does not give rise to any question of law much less the question as has been prayed for in the present reference application, as such was reject this reference application and refuse to draw up statement of the case for referring it to the Hon rsquo ble Gauhati High Court for its esteemed opinion, since in our opinion, no question of law arises from the order of the ITAT made in ITA No. 53 (Gau) of 1979. 4. The reference application is rejected accordingly.
-
1980 (4) TMI 155 - ITAT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... hich fact, is found out from the assessment order itself, the AAC has rightly directed and held that s. 80P(2)(a) of the Act applied on the facts of the assessee rsquo s case. On this score, the impugned order of the AAC which is a common consolidated one for both the assessment years under appeal is upheld since no interference is called for. 8. As regards the other count of disallowance of Rs. 1,27,907, suffice it to say that what is to be assessed is the real income in the hands of the assessee and what is to be assessed i.e., the person to be assessed remains the assessee which is a Co-operative Society. The income arising and accruing to the Co-operative Society is chargeable under the provisions of the IT Act, 1961 and not the departments and branches of the assessee like (store branch etc. etc.). The impugned order of the AAC on this score also calls for no interference, which we do uphold. 9. As a result thereof, both the appeals by the revenue fail and are dismissed.
-
1980 (4) TMI 154 - ITAT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... storage, and that, on the facts of the case, the new rolling mill set up by the assessee was not formed by the reconstruction of a business already in existence. On a reference at the instance of the Revenue Held, that the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-company was entitled to the benefit of s. 84 of the Act. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee has not addressed us on any other score although he has taken very many grounds in the grounds of appeal filed for all the assessment years under appeal, as such, the orders of the lower authorities on the above scores (but for the claim of the assessee under s. 80HH and 80J of the Act) are upheld since all these grounds have not been pressed for and accordingly are rejected. 9. As a result the assessee is entitled to claim of deduction-relief for all the assessment years under appeal under ss. 80HH and 80J of the Act and accordingly the appeals for the three assessment years partly succeed and are partly allowed.
-
1980 (4) TMI 153 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... 6,915 was added to the originally assessed total income and that in the case of individual, an income of Rs. 41,667 was added to the originally assessed income. The first appellate authority held that in view of the reopening of assessment itself having been found to be invalid, the said additions could not be sustained in law. The Department challenges the last said finding. 17. Ld. Deptl. Rep. argued that once an assessment is reopened the whole assessment is at large with the result that even those income items can be added which did not form part of the income believed to have escaped assessment at the stage of issue of s. 148 notice. The said result follows only if the reopening of assessment itself is valid otherwise, other addl. income items also fall alongwith the income item that was believed to have escaped assessment as aforesaid. We see no reason to disturb the lower appellate authority s finding in that regard. The Department fails. 18. The appeals are dismissed.
-
1980 (4) TMI 152 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... n that firm, has also to be treated as a manufacturer. This clearly follows from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramniklal Kothari. The point is also directly covered by a Department decision of the Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Globe Engineers (P)Ltd (5), in which it has been held as follows Where a registered firm manufacturers or process articles in an industrial undertaking, every partner of the registered firm does so and would also be entitled to any rebate in income-tax allowed to a manufacturer . It is further not disputed that the assessee company has been charged tax 55 per cent in the subsequent asst. yr. 1976-77. Therefore, on the basis of the admitted facts and the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court, it is a clear case in which the assessee company ought to have been treated as a manufacturing concern for purposes of charging of tax 55 per cent. Hence, we allow the assessee s claim on this point. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1980 (4) TMI 151 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... a penalty of Rs. 8,316 has to be sustained. 13. Coming to the penalty under s. 271(1)(b), the minimum penalty impassable is 10 per cent of the assessed tax of Rs. 59,400 and the maximum is 50 per cent thereof. For the deliberate non-production of the diary maintained, we have held that there was concealment of income and for such concealment penalty was exigible under s. 271(1)(c). In such circumstances, we consider that, looking to the other penalties levied, a minimum penalty of Rs. 5940 will meet the requirements of the case. 14. Coming to the penalty under s. 273(b), here again the minimum penalty works out to 10 per cent of 75 per cent of the assessed tax, i.e. Rs. 4,455. Looking to the other penalties we have sustained, we consider that a penalty of Rs. 4455 in respect of the default under s. 273(b) would meet the requirements of the case fully. 15. The result is that ITA No. 21 is allowed in part, ITA No. 944 is dismissed and ITA Nos. 945 and 946 are allowed in part.
-
1980 (4) TMI 150 - ITAT CALCUTTA-E
... ...
... ... ..... he Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Wasman Engineering Co. (P) Ltd.(1). The Departmental Representative contends that there being delay the assessee had no escape from levy of penalty. The 1d. Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that 15th of March, 1975 being a Saturday and as the assessee belongs to a mofussil district he could deposit the amount on the next banking day i.e. 17th of March 1975. Moreover, the relevant asst. yr. was the first year of which compulsory deposit was to be made. We are satisfied with the assessee s explanation and find therein reasonable cause for the delay in the deposit of the amount. Therefore, the AAC s decision is upheld. 3. In the result, all the appeals are dismissed.
-
1980 (4) TMI 149 - ITAT CALCUTTA-E
... ...
... ... ..... cern vide its letter dt. 14th Jan., 1970 sold back its holding of shares numbering 1700 to the assessee company, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the said German concern was holding beneficially the said shares numbering 1700 throughout the relevant previous years relevant to the assessment years under appeals. 23. The shares were all along, under the control of the company through its directors who were managing the affairs of the company as such, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the assessee s cases in appeals before us, we are of the opinion and do hold that the assessee company was not a company in which the public were substantially interested during the previous years relevant to the assessment years under appeal with the result that we do uphold the orders of the lower authorities for both the assessment years under appeals though on different grounds. 24. In the result, both the appeals by the assessee fail and are dismissed.
-
1980 (4) TMI 148 - ITAT CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... f Century Enka Ltd. vs. CIT(1). The assessee cannot, therefore, have any grievance in that behalf. 12. As far as the second limb of the additional ground viz., that the AAC should have directed the ITO to allow the deduction under s. 80J on the basis of the total capital employed without deducting the amount of current trade liabilities is concerned, the arguments by the parties are the same as were canvassed before the (Tribunal) (Calcutta Bench A) earlier in ITA No. 2491 and 2972 (Cal) of 1977-78 decided on 12th April, 1979. The factual position in the case of the assessee is similar to that of the above case. We have perused the aforesaid earlier order of the Tribunal. For the reasons stated therein, with which we agree, we direct the ITO to compute the deduction under s. 80J of the Act on the basis of the total capital employed without any deduction in respect of current trade liabilities. We hold likewise. 13. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed.
-
1980 (4) TMI 147 - ITAT BOMBAY-N
... ...
... ... ..... below Appurtenance The word Appurtenance has the meaning of usually occupied and would include a structure erected on a land for the purpose of its enjoyment Molend vs. Kissan 30 ITR (Bom) 250 p 263. The term also signifies things both corporeal or incorporeal belonging to another thing as principal. Tomlin s Law Dictionary. Prima facic it supports nothing more than what is strictly appertaining to the subject matter of the devise or grant and which would in truth pass without being specially mentioned. Evans vs. Angel (1958) 53 E.R. 874 . It would be clear therefrom that the entire land including the structures could be called appurtenance and it does not follow at all from the above definition or meaning that the land appurtenant to a building should be restricted to that married to the superstructures. We are, therefore, in agreement with the order of the Commr. (A). 8. For the above reasons, we, therefore, uphold the action of the Commr. (A) and reject the Deptl. appeal.
-
1980 (4) TMI 146 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
... ...
... ... ..... same reasons as recorded in the said order of the Tribunal, the assessee s claim under s. 11 must be upheld. The revenue on the other hand, contended that the assessee was not granted registration by the CIT for the asst. yr. 1972-73 and, therefore, was not entitled to claim for exemption as made by it. 5. We do not see any substance in the contention raised by the Revenue. The CIT had rejected the assessee s claim for registration on the ground that it was not charitable trust. On facts, it is found that the objects of the assessee are substantially analogous to those set out and considered by the Tribunal in the above cited appeals in the case of M/s. Bhiwandi Textile Manufacturers Association Ltd. No material was placed before us to distinguish the said decision of the Tribunal. Therefore, respectfully following the above decision of the Tribunal, for the reasons recorded therein, we uphold the decision of the AAC on the point. 6. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
-
1980 (4) TMI 145 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
... ...
... ... ..... issolved, though it can be said that he ceases to be a partner, it cannot be said that there is a mere change in the constitution of the firm. However, the Full Bench of the Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken the contrary view in the case of Nandlal Sohanlal vs. CIT, Patiala 110 ITR 170 and Shri Singh relies upon it and thereby contends that the impugned order is justified and merits no interference. We do not see any force in the contention of Shri Singh since it is settled law that when two interpretations of the statute or statutory rules are there, then interpretation favourable to the assessee is to be adopted by the Tribunal. 8. Therefore, in this situation of the matter, we hold that the two assessments are to be made in this case. On the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as it is the case of dissolution and not change in constitution of firm hence we set aside the orders of the authorities below. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1980 (4) TMI 144 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
... ...
... ... ..... assessee before the ITO appeared to be that the land under consideration was being cultivated by cultivators for several years and that the assessee wanted them to vacate for improving the land. If this is correct the expenditure is evident on the capital account and so rightly disallowed. On the other hand, the case of the assessee before the Commissioner was that the land under consideration was contiguous to the factory land. If that were so, it has nothing to do with the carrying on of the business in the factory. Shri Patil, urged before us, that the unauthorised occupants were inside the compound wall of the factory but no evidence whatsoever was produced at any stage in support of this contention. We, therefore, hold that the expenditure under consideration was not shown to be incidental to the carrying on of the business of the assessee and also that it was not on the capital account. Hence we uphold this disallowance. 12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1980 (4) TMI 143 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
... ...
... ... ..... tification in assessing the latter two instalments during the year under consideration. We therefore, direct that the said instalments be excluded from the total income of the assessee. 5. We find that the question before the Tribunal was whether a certain sum accrued due to the assessee or became receivable by the assessee during the previous year under consideration and the Tribunal, after considering the contentions of both the parties as well as the facts on record, came to the conclusion that the amount neither accrued due nor became receivable by assessee during the previous year. The finding of the Tribunal was essentially one of fact giving rise to no referable question of law. We find that in the case of F.S. Sequeira, another employee of the same employer, the reference application was rejected by the Tribunal vide their order dt. 2nd December, 1979 in R.A. No. 1212 (Bom)/1979 arising out of ITA No. 1397 (Bom)/1978-79. 6. In the result, the application is rejected.
........
|
