|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 148 Records
-
1982 (10) TMI 88 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Standard Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... een entitled to the full standard deduction of Rs. 5,000 per annum. The assessee cannot be in a worse position because he chose to bear the full running expenses. In other words, the intention is that a taxpayer should not be denied the full standard deduction in cases, for example, where the taxpayer himself bears the expenses for attending office from his residence and back to the residence and where he uses it for official purposes. As long as the employer does not bear the expenses of personal use by the employee, the full allowance is admissible. In the facts of the assessee s case, the assessee by bearing the entire expenses has clearly excluded the possibility of employer meeting any part of the expenses for personal use. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee is entitled to succeed. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The assessee would be entitled to the standard deduction of Rs. 5,000 as against Rs, 1,000 allowed by the authorities below.
-
1982 (10) TMI 87 - ITAT DELHI-E
... ...
... ... ..... e-tax Act, is not one of the provisions mentioned in section 24(11) of the Wealth-tax Act can lead to no infirmity in the constitution of the Three Member Bench in Biju Patnaik s case, inasmuch as sub-section (3) of section 255 merely purports to remove to an extent the restriction contained in section 255(2). Thus, when section 255(2) of the Income-tax Act, is not one of the provisions mentioned in section 24(11) of the Wealth-tax Act, non-mention of section 255(3) in section 24(11) is of no consequence. According to the revenue, the decision in CWT v.S. Baliah 1978 114 ITR 858 (AP) has taken a contrary view. With profound respect to their Lordships, we are unable to agree with the reasoning that section 255(2), even when not mentioned in said section 24(11), should be taken to have been mentioned in that section. First portion of the definition in rule 2(iii) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 is complete by itself. The revenue fails. 8. Appeal is dismissed.
-
1982 (10) TMI 86 - ITAT DELHI-D
A Firm, Adequate Consideration, Deemed Gift, Fair Market Value, Valuation Officer ... ... ... ... ..... point, in the light of the ruling in Arunachala s case. 29. Shri Vaish asks for consistency, in the last resort. He wants the revenue not to dither but to make up their mind on what Sir Shri Ram intended when he gifted the shares. And once they have done that, to follow that decision in all the cognate cases, uniformly. In principle, this is unexceptionable and Shri Vaish wants us to direct the revenue accordingly. But so far as the issue in this case is concerned, we must confess we are not inclined to throw stones. We shall leave it at that. 30. In the result, we find ourselves in respectful agreement with the conclusion of the Special Bench, recorded in its order of28-9-1976, on the nature of the gifts of shares made in July 1945 by Sir Shri Ram. The gifts reached the donees as individuals. We would, therefore, allow the appeals of the revenue (for the assessment years 1971-72 to 1974-75) and dismiss the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 1975-76 to 1978-79.
-
1982 (10) TMI 85 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ...
... ... ..... inding of the lower authorities that there was any interlocking or interlacing of funds. The presence of frequent debits and credits showed that the funds were not locked and that there was a continuous movement of funds between the two concerns. In this view of our finding, we are not in a position to find any support for the finding of the lower authorities that the two firms were nor genuinely constituted. In our view, the facts brought on record, if properly appreciated will indicate that the two firms were genuinely constituted and they are entitled to claim the benefit of registration u/s 185(b). We, therefore, vacate the finding of the lower authorities and direct the ITO to allow the two firms the benefit of registration for the asst. yr. 1973-74. As far as the appeal in respect of the asst. yr. 1974-75 are concerned, for the same reason, we allow the renewal of registration to the assessees. 6. Appeals for both the years, in respect of both the assesses, are allowed.
-
1982 (10) TMI 84 - ITAT DELHI-B
Approved Gratuity Fund, Life Insurance Corporation ... ... ... ... ..... s an approved gratuity fund created by him for the exclusive benefit of his employees under an irrevocable trust As rightly argued, the present case squarely falls within the ambit of section 36(1)(v). We say so, because the aforesaid gratuity fund has been created by the assessee for exclusive benefit of his employees under an irrevocable trust as witnessed by the trust deed dated31-3-1975, at pages 24 to 31 of the paper book of the assessee. The said gratuity fund, as is clear from the letter of the Commissioner,Delhi-I,New Delhi, dated8-2-1977, stood approved with effect from1-12-1975. The payment has been made by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution to that fund. The conditions pre-requisite for the application of section 36(1)(v) are attracted in the present case. The Commissioner (Appeals) was, therefore, correct in allowing the claim of the assessee to the extent of Rs. 10,40,360. 15. In the result, the appeal by the revenue fails and is hereby dismissed.
-
1982 (10) TMI 83 - ITAT DELHI-A
... ...
... ... ..... hold that in respect of this period, the firm should be treated as unregistered. In this connection, we have gone through the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of the ITAT published in 1979 TTJ 456 referred by the ld. Counsel of the assessee and find that the facts of the above case squarely apply to the facts of the present case. It was held in the above decision that the firm was entitled to registration for the period8th October 1971to31st March 1972to the asst. yr. 1972-73 if the other procedural formalities as regards the application for registration are satisfied. As already discussed earlier, all the formalities such as filing of application for registration in time, distribution of profits in the books of accounts, intimation to the Registrar of Firms, etc., have been duly complied with by the assessee and, therefore, for the period 17th January 1976 till 22nd October 1976 the firm is entitled to the grant of registration. 6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1982 (10) TMI 82 - ITAT DELHI-A
Business Expenditure, Business Premises, Capital Or Revenue Receipt, Capital Receipt, Expenditure Incurred, Income From House Property, Payments Not Deductible
-
1982 (10) TMI 81 - ITAT DELHI-A
Diversion By Overriding Title, Diversion Of Income, Income By Overriding Title ... ... ... ... ..... e to provide the source, in the manner indicated in the said letter dated 20-10-1975. That being the position, the amount of the profit which has been deposited every month by the assessee-corporation into the Consolidated Fund of India in accordance with the aforesaid contemporaneous stipulation in the said letter dated 20-10-1975 cannot be termed to be the application of the portion of the income to discharge the obligation. The present case is a case of the payment of the sum of Rs. 3,22,27,078 by the assessee-corporation in the Consolidated Fund of India by virtue of the diversion of the income by overriding title inasmuch as there is a charge on the profit making apparatus for the payment of the said amount. The said amount cannot, therefore, be added to the total income of the assessee as its income as held by the ITO. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in this behalf is, therefore, upheld. 13. In the result, the appeal by the revenue fails and is hereby dismissed.
-
1982 (10) TMI 80 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... nt, the age of the donee and the nature of the education he receives and is proposed to be give, the number of years for which the donee is to be educated and similar other relevant factors are to be taken into account. On appreciation of the relevant facts and circumstances material for ascertaining the reasonablness under the section, we consider that the assessee might have intended to provide the donee higher education in India by admitting him to the M.Com. course and L.L.B. course which he had to prosecute for a period of not less than three years. The reasonable expenses that were anticipated at the time of the gift could have been a sum of Rs. 30,000 when the value of the gifted property is only around Rs. 60,000. We, therefore, hold that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 5 (1) (xii) to the extent of Rs. 30,000. We modify the order of the AAC and direct the GTO to grant relief as above and modify the assessment. 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1982 (10) TMI 79 - ITAT COCHIN
Assessment Year, Cost Of Acquisition, Fair Market Value ... ... ... ... ..... ant s lands are used for agricultural purposes, the appellant s capital gains are to be totally exempted from income-tax. Reliance is placed in this regard in the case of Manubhai A. Sheth v. N.D. Nirgudkar, 1981 128 ITR 87 (Bom.). We are, however, unable to agree with the assessee that these grounds arise out of either the order of the ITO or the order of the AAC. This appeal has emanated from the order of the ITO refusing to accede to the request of the assessee for rectification of the assessment originally made under section 154 and section 155(10A). In these proceedings, the assessee has not raised the question that the capital gains are profits arising from the land and, therefore, it is agricultural income. In the absence of any such issue arising in these proceedings, from which this appeal has come up, it is difficult to accept that this additional ground can be considered in this appeal. This ground is, therefore, rejected. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1982 (10) TMI 78 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... he assessment year 1977-78 was filed on 1st August, 1977. As the application for registration for assessment year 1974-75 has not been disposed of and application for continuation in Form 12 regarding continuation of registration had been submitted in time, you are requested for the assessment year 1977-78 now enclosed herewith in Form 11 in view of the Circular No. 3P(XXV- 22) of 1964 (F. No. 3(16)-63/TPL dated 29th July, 1964). Copy of the circular is attached hereto. From the above letter, it is apparent that the assessee had come forward with a reason for late filing of Form No. 11 for the assessment year 1977-78 and the reason being sufficient and in the light of circular refered to above in the said letter of the assessee and order of the AAC, assessee s claim of registration should not have been refused. The contention, therefore, raised by the assessee in its appeal is accepted and action of the AAC is reversed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
1982 (10) TMI 77 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... e gift belongs. However, we do not find it necessary to go into the alternative contention of the assessee and the arguments of the parties from both the sides in view of the finding given by us that the agricultural lands as well as the privy purse amounts transferred in the manner described above belonged to the Hindu Undivided Family and constituted the joint family properties. 36. In deciding the issues before us as above, we have taken into consideration the submissions made by both the sides and relevant authorities cited. If we do not refer to or particularly mention any authority in the decision that we have arrived at, that does not mean that we have in any manner not considered it. 37. In the determination of the issues that came before us, we have received able assistance from both the sides which we highly appreciate and without which our task would have been much more difficult. 38. In the result GTA No. 19 of 1979 is allowed and GTA No. 20 of 1979 is dismissed.
-
1982 (10) TMI 76 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... partmental representative could not controvert the fact that the ITO applied his mind, which is apparent by first adding Rs. 31,296 and then allowing Rs. 26,382, according to us, it is not free from debate, if item (32) is carefully read. Perusal of all the grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal and arguments for both the sides show that the issue is not free from debate. It was only incorrect perusal of Fifth Schedule which made the ITO to allow particular percentage of development rebate, which he modified subsequently after looking to the fact that the said material produced or manufactured by the assessee, did not find place in the said Schedule but something more when he computed development rebate, as headed. It was not a patent mistake and could not, therefore, be rectified, according to us. In the light of above discussion, we don t agree with the reasons given in the order of the AAC, his action is, therefore, reversed. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1982 (10) TMI 75 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... assessee that the assessee being a partner in the firm is also entitled to exemption under s. 5(1)(x), we find that this claim is misplaced. What the assessee can get as an exemption under s. 5(1)(x) is the value of the tools and instruments necessary to enable the assessee to carry on his profession or vocation subject to a maximum of Rs. 20,000 in value. In the case before us, the assessee is only a partner in a firm. The firm is nothing but a compendious name for its partners but whatever exemption is available to the assessee is with regard to his interest in the firm so far as this Act is concerned, the assessee is not carrying on any profession or vocation independently. The claim of the assessee was, therefore, rightly rejected by the authorities below insofar as exemption under s. 5(1)(x) is concerned. We, therefore, dismiss the cross-objections of the assessee as well. 12. Result-both the appeals of the revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed.
-
1982 (10) TMI 74 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... on in property against the order of the Competent Authority. Hence it is very clear that any person interested in the property or claiming interest in the property has to be served with statutory notice so that he can, in order to protect his interest, challenge the acquisition proceedings. These mandatory provisions of law cannot by any stretch of imagination even be called either obscurities or procedural requirements because they in their very nature affect the vital and substantial interests of the parties concerned. 9. In view of what is stated above and in view of the fact that there is no proof of service of notice under s. 269D(2) on Sat Pal Singh, one of the transferees, the order made by the Competent Authority is bad in law. At this stage we would like to point out that when the transferees took the matter in appeal before the ITAT earlier, the challenge to the order and its validity was only with regard to the provisions of s. 269C of the Act. 10. Appeal allowed.
-
1982 (10) TMI 73 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... hing the return. For such a delay, no penalty is leviable. 7. It is to be noticed that no notice had been served by the WTO for filing the return either for the assessment year under consideration or for the asst. yr. 1975-76, and the assessee had furnished the returns voluntarily. It has not been shown that the assessee was otherwise habituated to a contumacious conduct. In our considered opinion, the ratio of the judgment of the Orissa High Court in the case of Ramnik Lal D. Mehta is applicable to the case of the assessee. The penalty is, therefore, not leviable. 8. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, cited by the revenue and we find that the facts of that case were entirely different than the facts of the case before us and therefore, that judgment has no application to the case before us. We, therefore, have no hesitation in cancelling the penalty imposed upon the assessee. The penalty is cancelled. 9. Appeal allowed.
-
1982 (10) TMI 72 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... the CIT observed. With that he observed that it is an erroneous order which is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 3. When this action of the CIT was contested before the Tribunal, the Tribunal in paras 8 and 9 of its order allowed the assessee s appeal. The Tribunal in para 8 of its order on page 13 observed as under ... In the instant case, the land leased out was agricultural land as per the Revenue s record and was being used by the assessee as such before it was leased out. Reading of the deed as a whole also shows that it would be used for agricultural purposes but since the lease is for 88 years it also does not exclude the possibility of putting it to some other use. 4. The perusal of the Tribunal s order shows that no referable question of law arises as the Tribunal has come to a finding of fact that the land in question was agricultural and on that basis accepted the assessee s appeal. 5. In the result, the reference application of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
1982 (10) TMI 71 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... . Therefore, when the CIT found by looking to the valuation report of the Valuation Officer and the addition made by the ITO that it was to be in excess of the addition made by the ITO that could not justify an inference that the order made by the ITO was erroneous so as to be prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The order made by the CIT was thus without jurisdiction under s. 263. 6. In the case of M/s Gaba Cold Storage in ITA No. 148 of 1982, the Tribunal considered an order made by the CIT under s. 263 in that case on 18th Feb., 1980 and cancelled the same vide order dt. 3rd June, 1982 on similar set of facts. We find that in this case, the ITO had after applying his mind and with due care and caution, came to a conclusion that on the facts of the case, addition of Rs. 50,000 would meet the ends of justice. This was not an assessment which could be called erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The order made by the Commr. was cancelled. 7. Appeal allowed.
-
1982 (10) TMI 70 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... gives the powers to the CIT to call for and examine the record of any proceedings under this Act and if he considers that any order passed thereunder by the ITO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, he may, after giving an opportunity of being heard etc., pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify. This shows that any order passed by the ITO including an order passed under s 185(1)(a) of the Act can be reviewed by the CIT. Therefore, if we have not upheld the order of the Commissioner in this case, it is not because he is not empowered to invoke the provisions of s. 263 but because he had no jurisdictional facts and his assumption of jurisdiction was not in accordance with law and the order of the ITO as made by him could not be considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In this view of the matter, we do not consider it necessary to dilate upon other contentions of the parties. 17. Appeal allowed.
-
1982 (10) TMI 69 - ITAT CALCUTTA-C
... ...
... ... ..... impugned order. The arguments placed before the CIT(A) are reiterated here before us that the business of the assessee was not only of construction work, which formed only a part of the whole business activities of the assessee right from acquiring of assets, lands, etc. It is further stated that in fact booking of flats, receipt of advance money for flat allotment etc. have already been transacted by the assessee. In short, the order of the CIT(A) may be upheld. 6. After hearing both the sides and after going through the papers placed before us, we find no substance in the departmental appeal. We find no material to disagree with the findings and conclusion as arrived at by the CIT(A). In our view, the assessee, on the facts stated, has started his business during the year and the loss incurred and returned has rightly been directed by the CIT(A) to be assessed accordingly. No interference is called for with his order. 7. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed.
|
