|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 203 Records
-
1981 (8) TMI 104 - ITAT CALCUTTA-E
... ...
... ... ..... ble to give any comparable case to show that a higher rate of gross profit was shown for the relevant year by other traders in this line of business. In the circumstances, we held that the addition made by the ITO was not justified and the same is accordingly deleted. 8. The fourth and last ground raised in this appeal is that the AAC had erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 2,500 out of general expenses when complete details of the expenses had been furnished before the ITO. We find that the addition has been made by the ITO in a routine manner on an adhoc basis. The ld. counsel for the assessee placed before us a copy of the details of the miscellaneous shop expenses filed by him before the ITO. Having regard to the statement of the expenses placed before us we are of the opinion that the disallowance made by the ITO and confirmed by the AAC is not justified. The aforesaid addition is, therefore deleted. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
1981 (8) TMI 103 - ITAT CALCUTTA-C
... ...
... ... ..... 8-69. It had not recorded any clear finding that the business of the assessee had been closed during the accounting year relevant to that year because had it done so apparently there was not idea of sending the matter back to the AAC for the present year in question. On receipt of the matter back the Commr. (A) has thoroughly gone through the various transactions carried on by the assessee in connection with its business an has after discussing the matter at great length came to the conclusion that the assessee carried on business during the relevant accounting year as well. The observations of the Tribunal referred to by the Deptl. Rep. were in the nature of narration and did not amount to any findings of fact which have now been found to be positively in favour of the assessee by the Commr. (A). The Deptl. Rep. could not point out any fact or circumstances to the country. Consequently, we see no reason to interfere in this appeal. 3. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1981 (8) TMI 102 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B
Transfer Of Assets, For Benefit Of Spouse Or Minor Child ... ... ... ... ..... collusive and the consideration paid by the assessee s son was understated. No such evidence is forthcoming. Further, taking into account the disturbed conditions of the city during 1970, property values were bound to be low compared to the value prevailing in periods subsequent to 1971. We find that the transfer to the assessee s wife took place on 14-12-1970 and the value is the same as that paid by Gautam Mukherjee. The auctioneers have given the particulars of the bids in the auction held on 9-5-1970. We find that outsiders also participated in the auction and no outsider was prepared to pay more than Rs. 68,000. We have, therefore, to accept that the fair market value of one-fourth share of the property in 1970 was Rs. 69,000. The consideration being adequate, there are no grounds to invoke the provisions of section 64(1)(iv). We, therefore, agree with the AAC and dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue. 6. The cross-objection by the assessee is dismissed as not pressed.
-
1981 (8) TMI 101 - ITAT CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... ve looking into fresh facts and also because the ground has not been taken even as an additional ground. He has also pointed out that it was not the case of the ITO at any stage and that the CIT (A) also did not say that the claim is allowed as a bad debt. All through, according to Dr. Pal, the amount was considered as irrecoverable advance. 19. In our opinion, the decisions relied on by the CIT (A) fully support the claim of the assessee. So far as the additional plea is concerned, to agree with Dr. Pal. The plea sought to be urged by Mr. Lahiri was never taken by the ITO. The application of under s. 36(2) was never in picture. It will also involve taking additional evidence on record. It is, therefore, not possible to consider the additional plea, more so because the claim allowed by the CIT (A) also is not on that basis. 20. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. I agree with the conclusion that the amount of Rs. 1,82,000 is not allowable as a revenue expenditure.
-
1981 (8) TMI 100 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
... ...
... ... ..... nctity about the dates set out in s.211 and that the substance of the advance tax requires that the advance tax should be paid before the relevant Financial Year. Similarly, it has been held by the Bombay High Court in (1979) 118 ITR 525 (Bom) (Traub India Ltd) that the assessee would be entitled to interest u/s 214 on excess payment of advance of advance tax even though the payment of advance tax had not been made in accordance with the schedule prescribed u/s 207 to 213 of the IT Act, 1961. In view of these authorities, we are of the opinion that the delay of only 3 days in paying the advance tax of Rs.4,111,685 could not benefit this amount to its character as advance tax and that since this amount was paid within the relevant financial year, the same must be treated as, advance tax for the purpose of calculation of interest u/s 139(8) of the IT Act, 1961. In this view of the matter, we confirm the impuged order of the CIT(A). 10. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
-
1981 (8) TMI 99 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
Valuation Of Gift ... ... ... ... ..... d, the Commissioner (Appeals) directed that no further reduction should be allowed. It was intended to give a direction that no reduction under the proviso to rule 1D should be given in the present case. No reasons have been stated for the same. We are inclined to wonder whether the direction that no reduction should be given appears as a result of an error by the introduction of the word no . It is clear that once rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules is adopted for the purposes of the valuation, there is no justification for not applying the rule into and to ignore the benefits conferred on the assessee by the proviso. The claims of the assessee for reduction of the value has, therefore, to be allowed, subject to verification by the GTO. 10. In the result, the appeals by the department are dismissed. The appeals by the assessee are allowed and the GTO is directed to allow the reduction in the value as prescribed by the proviso to rule 1D while working out the value of the shares.
-
1981 (8) TMI 98 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
... ...
... ... ..... at it was also not in dispute that none of the beneficiaries had income in the year under consideration chargeable under the IT Act and that being the position, the decision of the AAC in that case that the proviso to s 164 (1) of the Act was attracted had to be upheld. So, in nutshell, the finding of the Tribunal was that if in the previous year relevant for the assessment year under consideration the beneficiaries and their respective shares were determinable then the provisions of s. 164(1) of the Act are not applicable. In the present cases, there is no dispute that in the previous year relevant for the assessment year under consideration, the beneficiaries and their respective shares are known and determinable. Therefore, the provisions of s 164(1) of the Act are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and the CIT (Appeals) has acted accordingly in arriving at his conclusion. Hence we confirm his orders. 8. In the result both the appeals are dismissed.
-
1981 (8) TMI 97 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
Charitable Or Religious Trust ... ... ... ... ..... assessee should also be included in the holdings of the person enumerated in section 13(3) and if such total exceeds 20 per cent, then section 13(2)(h) should be applicable. We have considered this contention but we do not agree. Substantial interest has been defined in Explanation 3. A plain reading of this section shows that it clearly refers only to the holdings of the persons enumerated in section 13(3) and not to those of the assessee itself. Section 13(3) does not include the assessee itself. Hence, we do not find any force in this contention raised for the revenue. Thus, we hold that for the assessment year 1974-75, the assessee is not hit by section 13(2)(h) and so the exemption under section 11 was erroneously denied to it. We, reverse the decision of the lower authorities and direct that the assessment for this year be modified accordingly. 10. In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 1973-74 is dismissed and that for the assessment year 1974-75 is allowed.
-
1981 (8) TMI 96 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
Hindu Undivided Family, Assessability Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... paid primarily in return for the personal services rendered by the assessee as its managing director. The mere fact that the HUF of which the assessee was the karta had some investment in the shares of the company would not make any difference to the above conclusion, vide the decision in the case of Raj Kumar Singh. Once we come to the factual conclusion that the remuneration under consideration was paid primarily for the personal services rendered by the assessee, it follows, on the authority of the decision in the case of Raj Kumar Singh, that the remuneration is assessable in the hands of the assessee in his individual capacity. This has been rightly done by the revenue authorities. We agree with the learned representative for the department that the principle of res judicata does not apply to the income-tax proceedings and each assessment year is separate. For the above reasons, we uphold the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1981 (8) TMI 95 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
... ...
... ... ..... ct that the trustees were to hold the corpus of the trust for the benefit of the assessee and in her absence for those beneficiaries who had been specified in the trust deed, would not mean that accretions to such corpus would, because it might fall under the definition of income under the It Act, be virtually an behalf of, or for the benefit of, the present assessee. In light of the above cited decision, if we examine the facts of the case, it is clear that as per cl. 7 of the deed of trust, the realisation on sale of any investments in the trust fund has to be deemed as a part of trust fund. In other words the realisation on investment would form part of the trust corpus and as a consequence the beneficiary would have no right over such realisation. The income from capital gains therefore, if at all, would be exigible to tax in the hands of the trustees and not in the hands of the assessee beneficiary. We accordingly confirm the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss this appeal.
-
1981 (8) TMI 94 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
Export Market Development Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... n. It is, therefore, a case of the two persons associating themselves for the export of the goods within the meaning of the expression occurring in section 35B. The commission paid by the assessee is for securing the persons holding export quotas and it is, therefore, a legitimate business expenditure for ensuring the export of the goods. Salary of the staff of the assessee engaged in this part of the work also falls under this category. It is also found that in the assessment order for the subsequent year, a copy of which has been produced by the assessee, commission paid by the assessee on indirect export has been taken into consideration in working out the weighted deduction under section 35B. Thus, on a consideration of the matter on all its aspects, we hold that the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction on the items of expenditure mentioned above and that the Commissioner (Appeals) was fully justified in allowing the claim. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1981 (8) TMI 93 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
Capital Expenditure, Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... both its leviability and quantum. In this connection, it has to be borne in mind that the Bombay High Court s decision is binding on this Bench of the Tribunal. Moreover, the Bombay High Court s decision in the case of Daimler Benz is a Full Bench decision. No doubt, this particular aspect has not been considered by their Lordships of the Bombay High Court but the issue is broadly covered. In the circumstances, we do not think it is proper for us to distinguish the binding decision of the Bombay High Court on the ground that a particular aspect of the question was not considered by their Lordships as such. Incidentally, a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court has also taken the same view as taken by the Bombay High Court in its decision in the case of CIT v. Geeta Ram Kali Rom 1980 121 ITR 708. Accordingly, respectfully following the aforesaid Bombay High Court s decision, we uphold the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals). 43. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1981 (8) TMI 92 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... In our opinion, this interpretation is wrong. The advance-tax paid is governed by separate provision and in this case it had been paid in the relevant financial year to the extent of Rs. 1,51,022. It is not on this payment that interest under s. 244(1A) is being claimed. A demand of Rs. 45,783 had been raised on 27th Jan., 1977 and this demand has been satisfied by adjusting the advance-tax paid towards this demand. In these circumstances, it will have to be held that the tax after the assessment has been paid after 1st April, 1975. This demand is also subsequent to the making of assessment and not prior to that. The nature of the two payments are different. We, therefore, agree with the ld. CIT (A) that in this case the payment of tax having been made after 1st April, 1975 and interest having become due as a result of the appellate orders, interest as provided in s. 244(1A) has to be allowed. We therefore, uphold the order of the CIT (A) and dismiss the departmental appeal.
-
1981 (8) TMI 91 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... on was also drawn to the Board s Circular on this point. 6. The ld. counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that in this case, there was no delay in payment of advance-tax and therefore, there was no evident mistake in not allowing interest under s. 214. 7. We have considered the facts of the case and we are of the view that the cheques having been presented on the dates specified in s. 211, it has to be held that the advance-tax was paid on the due dates. Respectfully relying on the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court referred to in the order of the ld. CIT (A), we hold that the payment will be deemed to be made on the date of presentation if the cheque is ultimately honoured. Once this fact is accepted, there can be no dispute that non-allowance of interest under s. 214 was a mistake apparent from record. The provision under s. 54 is, therefore found to be applicable. We, therefore, uphold the order of the ld. CIT (A) and dismiss the Deptl. appeal.
-
1981 (8) TMI 90 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... ner has got to be upheld and no interference is called for. We accordingly, uphold his finding on this issue and dismiss the contention and appeal of revenue on this score. 18. Similarly, the last ground raised by revenue relates to allowance of a sum of Rs. 3,670 disallowed from telephone expenses by ITO. Out of total expenses of Rs. 17,011 the ITO had disallowed 1/3rd expenses amounting to Rs. 5,670. The CIT after careful consideration of facts and circumstances of the case brought down the disallowance to Rs. 2,000 only. He allowed a relief of Rs. 3,670. In connection with the appeal filed by the assessee on this issue we upheld the finding of the CIT and held that no interference was called for. Accordingly we dismiss the contention of revenue and its appeal on the issue in this respect. This disposes off the appeal filed by revenue which has not raised any other issue. 19. In the result, while the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, appeal by revenue is dismissed.
-
1981 (8) TMI 89 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
... ...
... ... ..... ese activities are enumerated as ancillary or incidental to the main objects. Therefore, the ancillary activities can only be carried on after any one of the main objects is started. The Companies Act has been amended w.e.f. 15th Oct., 1965, and the requirements of splitting up the objects into main and ancillary has been introduced only from that date. The cases cited above are those relating to companies formed before that date and, therefore, the proposition laid down in Prem Conductors that company can commence business in any one of the categories mentioned in the object clause must be read to mean that the company can do so only by doing business in any one of the activities mentioned in the main object clause. 5. Therefore, on the date on which the loan was advanced, the company cannot be said to have commenced its business and the preliminary expenses claimed cannot be allowed as deduction. 6. In the result, the CIT(A) s order is confirmed and the appeal is rejected.
-
1981 (8) TMI 88 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... f a child are duty-bound to maintain it. This does not depend on the financial position of the particular parent but is more a personal right. It may be that in actual practice one or the other parent provides for the maintenances of the child but in law it will be difficult for one or the other parent to deny or get out of such obligation. This being so as a matter of law, we cannot hold that the mother is not obliged to support or maintain the child. This would be so even if the child does have or is endowed with sufficient property of its own. This legal position would be sufficient for the assessee to avail of the exemption. She has made a categorical statement before the GTO that the minor is dependent on her and this is not even a matter of fact denied. The mere fact of the father being a well to do person does not take away the mother s obligation to look after the child. We, therefore, hold that even on this ground the assessee must allowed. 6. The appeal is allowed.
-
1981 (8) TMI 87 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... ave jurisdiction to proceed u/s. 147/148 the condition precedent required under the said sections must exist. If those conditions do not exist, the ITO will have no jurisdiction to proceed u/s. 147/148 of the IT Act, 1961. In other decisions relied by the appellant it was held on facts that the ITO totally lacked jurisdiction when he made assessment orders. 32. For the reasons discussed above, we are of the view that the ld. CIT was correct in holding that the assessment order passed by the ITO were erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He was also correct in holding that the ITO shall refer the matter to the IAC as required u/s. 144B of the IT Act, 1961. So the appeals Nos. 2055, 2056, 2057 and 2058 filed by the assessee have no substance. The other appeals also have no force because the original assessment orders stood by the order of the ld. CIT. The finding of ld. CIT is quite correct. 33. In the result all the appeals fail and the same are dismissed.
-
1981 (8) TMI 86 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... i.e. 1976-77, the shareholders would have been entitled to relief in view of s. 80K to the extent of Rs. 84,905. The distributable income of this year was Rs. 78,940 and the statutory percentage applicable required the assessee to declare 45 per cent thereof i.e. 35,748, as dividend. The entire amount would have qualified for relief under s. 80K and there would not have been any tax to be recovered and resultantly there would have been no benefit to the Revenue. In these circumstances under s. 104(2)(ii) the ITO is not authorised to make an order under s. 104. It is immaterial whether the company had substantial income in the intermediate year but still did not declare any dividend. Sec. 80K benefit is available when dividends are declared for the first time after 80J relief and hence the contention of the assessee could be valid year after year till the dividend is actually declared. 6. We, therefore, confirm the order of the ld. CIT (A). The revenue s appeal is dismissed.
-
1981 (8) TMI 85 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Mutual Concern, Assessability Of, Income From Other Sources, Chargeable As ... ... ... ... ..... the head Profits and gains of business or profession , it becomes so chargeable under the residuary head. 17. We may also point out that section 14 of the Act, when read with section 4 thereof, makes it clear that every type of income falling within any of the heads mentioned in section 14 is chargeable to tax, unless a specific exemption is given by the provisions of the Act itself. In support of our conclusion we are also fortified by the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Ludhiana Central Co-operative Consumers Stores Ltd. and also by the Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Shree Jari Merchants Association. 18. No other point was proceeded before us. 19. For the reasons discussed above, we are of the view that the learned AAC was right in sustaining the finding of the ITO that membership fee to the extent of Rs. 9,102, received by the assessee in the year of account is taxable. 20. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
............
|
