|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 172 Records
-
1982 (6) TMI 112
Business, Adventure In The Nature Of Trade ... ... ... ... ..... he nature of trade. The orders of the lower authorities are, accordingly, reversed and the appeals of the assessees on this point are allowed. 8. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Raja Jai Rameshwar Rao relied upon by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is distinguishable on facts as the assessees were not found to have made any development of the land in the present case. With regard to the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Jawahar Development relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals), it is seen that the assessee in that case not only purchased the plot of land but formed a real estate firm by executing the partnership deed and also filed the return of income showing profit from the sale as income from business. The facts are clearly distinguishable from that of the assessees presently before us. 9. The ITO is accordingly, directed to assess the said amount as capital gains in the respective hands of the three assessees. The appeals are allowed.
-
1982 (6) TMI 111
Income, Accrual Of ... ... ... ... ..... pital gains. Therefore, we would prefer to follow the line of judgments, wherein it is held that the interest should be taxed in the years to which it actually relates. This is subject to the condition that the interest finally determined only is to be brought to tax but such interest is to be brought to tax in the years to which the interest actually relates. We may humbly submit that while deciding the judgment in the case of Topandas Kundanmal against which Special Leave Petition filed by the Commissioner was dismissed by the Supreme Court, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mrs. Khorshed Shapoor Chenai, was not before their Lordships of the Gujarat High Court. We, thus, modify the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) accordingly, and direct that only that amount of interest on enhanced compensation is to be brought to tax in this year which actually pertains to the relevant previous year pertaining to this assessment year. 15. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1982 (6) TMI 110
... ...
... ... ..... il 1960 wherein the Deptl. officers have been instructed not to refer to the Valuation Cell the cases where the difference in the cost is less than Rs. 50,000. It was, therefore, contended that no additions should have been made. 3. The departmental Representative, on the other hand, submitted, relying on the order of the authorities below, that the addition as made was justified and should be confirmed. 4. After hearing both the parties, I am of the view that the registered valuer s certificate regarding the cost of construction provided better guidelines being of a date closed to construction period. Apart from that, according to the Board s circular, the Board does not desire smaller assessee to be harassed unnecessarily. As I find on facts that the addition was not justified I see no reason to sustain the addition. In doing so, I have taken note of the Board s circular which has humanized the provisions for the valuation purposes. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1982 (6) TMI 109
Capital Gains, Chargeability Of ... ... ... ... ..... goodwill generated in a new business is not such an asset, in respect of which cost of acquisition in terms of money is conceivable and, therefore, no capital gains would arise on its transfer. Immovable property, however, is a capital asset in respect of which cost of acquisition is conceivable. The principle applicable to transfer of a self-generated right such as goodwill is not, therefore, applicable to transfer of an immovable property even where the cost of acquisition to the assessee is nil. The asset transferred by the assessee being the land purchased and not the right to purchase, which is only a statutory right or the tenancy right, or even the land owner s right as such, but the right, title and interest of the assessee in the land, the transfer is one of a capital asset in respect of which capital gains tax is exigible. We do not, therefore, find any merit in the contention of the assessee. We confirm the order of the AAC. In the result the appeals are dismissed.
-
1982 (6) TMI 108
Appellate Tribunal, Orders Of ... ... ... ... ..... lahabad High Court in Vithaldas v. ITO 1969 71 ITR 204 where the assessee made an application for rectification within the prescribed period and no order of rectification was passed within the date, the High Court issued a writ directing the rectification after the expiry of four years. We, therefore, reject the contention of the revenue. 9. The departmental representative also submitted that even if the error is found apparent from record, an opportunity has to be given to the revenue to prove understatement of consideration. At no stage of the proceedings, the revenue had the case that the consideration declared by the assessee is not the actual consideration. It is, therefore, not necessary to go into the question at this stage. We hold that the order of the Tribunal suffers from an apparent error of law in upholding the levy of capital gains tax and allowing the departmental appeal. We, therefore, allow this miscellaneous petition, recall the order and dismiss the appeal.
-
1982 (6) TMI 107
Exemption, Gift For Education Of Childern ... ... ... ... ..... onor was in a position to make provisions for his higher studies either in India or abroad. It is disclosed that the donee had in fact prosecuted for such studies. It is immaterial that he had gone abroad and had chosen to settle down thereafter having worked for a short period in India. Obviously, where the education is in a foreign country, the expenses would be heavier and naturally gift of a larger amount is called for than when education is undergone in India. It can be gathered from the circumstances and recitals in the deed that the donor had intended to make adequate provision for such expenses to be met for the higher education of his son. We, therefore, consider that an amount of Rs. 25,000 would not be unreasonable or excessive, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case. We, therefore, uphold the claim for exemption to the extent of Rs. 25,000 and direct the GTO to allow that deduction under section 5(1)(xii). The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
-
1982 (6) TMI 106
... ...
... ... ..... old that the impugned penalty orders are bad in law purely on legal grounds firstly, because these are based upon invalid assessments and secondly, because they are barred by limitation. 19. Now coming to the merits of the case, we find that there is no controversion of the fact that the Karta was ailing since long which necessitated the power of attorney in favour of Dalip Singh. It has also not been controverted that the other coparcener was not at Patiala as he was away for studies. It is also not controverted that the substantial portion of the net wealth included agricultural lands. It is also not in dispute that the returns were filed by the assessee voluntarily though these were invalid. On these facts, the plea of the assessee that he did not file the returns on bona fide grounds is acceptable. Therefore, the last ground on the basis of which the penalties cannot stand is, that there was a reasonable cause for the delay. Hence penalties cancelled. 20. Appeals allowed.
-
1982 (6) TMI 105
Commissioner (Appeals) ... ... ... ... ..... , 1961 dated 19-2-1980, set aside the assessment with the direction to frame afresh . It will not be out of place to mention that this order has been subject matter of appeal before AAC for the very assessment year under consideration before us, that is, 1974-75, for which the relevant previous year had ended on 31st Oct,1973 and the AAC finding stand accepted by both the assessee and the revenue. 5. Though at the time of hearing the ld. Deptl. Rep. besides making the above noted submissions that sections 250 and 263 operate in different fields and are independent o f each other, also submitted that in section 263 order, the CIT had only mentioned certain additions to be made which had not originally been done and consequential order framed afresh by the ITO, the extract from both of which we have placed above, we find the contentions of the Id. Deptl. Rep. without any force. According to us, appeal deserves to be dismissed. . In the result, the revenue s appeal is dismissed.
-
1982 (6) TMI 104
... ...
... ... ..... he books and, therefore, income from earlier years being capital in rotation the application of G.P. rate alone was warranted and not the addition as a whole. The assessee s explanation that there were certain items in RGI register which could not be corelated with kilns loaded and unloaded, also go to prove that the assessee had been keeping production outside the books. In the light of the finding from the Collector, Central Excise and Customs, which went to the Central Board of Excise and Customs which gave finding regarding the assessee s production outside the books having been confirmed and the assessee s explanation in that respect being the same before the IT authorities in course of income-tax proceedings and our own findings we have confirmed the undisclosed turnover of Rs. 1,12,000 and adding the same to the turnover shown by the assessee, have confirmed the G.P rate of 30 per cent on total turnover of Rs. 5,04,866. 15. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1982 (6) TMI 103
... ...
... ... ..... nuineness of partnership viz., as under (i) The firm should be constituted under an instrument of partnership specifying the individual shares of the partners (ii) an application on behalf of, and signed by all the partners and containing all the particulars as set out in the Rules must be made. (iii) the application should be made before the assessment of the firm under s. 23, for that particular year (iv) the profits or losses, if any, of the business relating to the accounting year should have been divided or credited, as the case may be, in accordance with the terms of the instrument and (v) the partnership must be genuine and must actually have existed in conformity with the terms conditions of the instrument of partnership, in the accounting year, 8. A perusal of facts shows that in the light of above stated conditions, the assessee does not fails anywhere and its claim of registration is in order and allowed as such. 9. In the result, the assessee s appeal is allowed.
-
1982 (6) TMI 102
... ...
... ... ..... to the assessee therefrom. It is to be remembered that in examining these aspects, one cannot work with a hind-sight after the happening of the events because that will tantamount to projecting the parties as if they knew the future happenings and, therefore, managed their affairs accordingly. If despite the efforts made in bona fide manner by both the parties, the turnover and the profits of the assessee did not go up, that cannot and would not show that the expenditure was not laid out for legitimate needs of the business of the assessee and therefore was not incommensurate with the expenditure. We, therefore, direct that the amounts of commission claimed by the assessee be allowed as a deduction in their entirety for each of the assessment years under appeal. Since we have allowed the deduction of the entire amount in each year, the assessee succeeds in its appeal on this issue. 36. The appeals of the assessee partly allowed and the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed.
-
1982 (6) TMI 101
... ...
... ... ..... urt decision in the case of Ganpatrai Gajanand is the only case relied upon by the ld. Deptl. Rep. which is in respect of penalty. But even in that case, the limited issue was whether the addition made under s. 68 is the income therein and their Lordships came to a finding that once an addition is made under s. 68 the Revenue cannot be required to prove that the amount added under s. 68 was not, in fact, the income of the assessee. In the instant case, we are issue whether the three cash credits out of on the which one was deleted by the Tribunal consequently and the two got sustained on rejection of explanation in the course of assessment proceedings were concealed income and could warrant levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(c). Despite Explanation according to us, no penalty could be called for in the instant case and in the light of above discussion and for the reasons given by the AAC in his order, his action is confirmed. 9. In the result, the Revenue s appeal is dismissed.
-
1982 (6) TMI 100
... ...
... ... ..... e for delay in filing the return. In any case, that delay has not been explained in any manner before me either by way of documentary evidence or orally. It is with this observation that he levied the penalty. While dealing with the asst. yr. 1969-70, we noticed that the WTO granted time to the assessee to file the wealth-tax returns upto 17th July, 1973, which he did. Only after seven days were taken by the assessee as he filed wealth-tax return for 1970-71, on 24th July, 1973, itself is a fact which shows that the assessee has reasonable cause for not filing the returns till the date it filed the same. Besides this, we are not entering into other issues because the delay is apparently explained and admitted by the Department year after year due to collapse of the concerns in which the assessee had substantial interest and even financial difficulties, absence of staff and other factors. Both the penalties are, therefore, cancelled. 9. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
1982 (6) TMI 99
... ...
... ... ..... er where in respect of any completed assessment of a partner in a firm he finds that on the assessment or reassessment of the firm or on any reduction or enhancement made in the income of the firm under 155,s. 154, s. 250, s. 254, s. 260, s. 262 and s. 263 or s. 264 that the share of the partner in the income of the firm has not been included in the assessment of the partner or if included is not correct, the ITO may frame the order of assessment of the partner to make necessary amendments. All these provisions read together, in our opinion, indicate that in the assessment of the partner, loss received by him from the firm has to be set off and carry forward only with regard the provisions particularly contained in the statute for completing the assessment of partner only. Therefore, the claim made by each of the assessees before us with regard to the set off and carry forward of loss by them was admissible. The AAC was justified in allowing the claim. 11. Appeals dismissed.
-
1982 (6) TMI 98
... ...
... ... ..... n of the ITO imposing penalty for failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts be converted into an order made by the ITO in terms of the Expln. to s. 271 (1)(c). This contention of the Revenue is incongruous in so far as the ITO never thought that the Expln. to s. 271(1)(c) was applicable in the case of the assessee. It is to be noticed that while the Explanation is to be applied, its various ingredients have to be gone through and that is a matter which requires enquiry into facts. The Tribunal is not an investigating agency. If the ITO, therefore, wanted to apply s. 271(1)(c), the principles of natural justice required that he should be given an opportunity. This opportunity having not been given by the authorities below, the Bench is unable to start the proceedings in the manner that would convert it into an institution for purpose of investigation which it is not. The contention of the Revenue has, therefore, to be dismissed. 7. Appeal allowed.
-
1982 (6) TMI 97
... ...
... ... ..... sly disregarded the provisions of law because there was an application filed for extension of time upto 30th Sept., 1975 for which there is proof. The claim of the assessee is that even thereafter on 1st Oct., 1975, an application for extension of time upto 31st March, 1976 had been filed. For this there is no proof, but we do not see any reason why an assessee who had sought for time upto 30th Sept., 1975 would not ordinarily ask for time further when it was conscious of its duty in filing the return as required by law. Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, the penalty levied upon the assessee was without any justification. The delay in furnishing the return was due to reasonable cause and for such a delay, no penalty could be levied. 5. Since on merits we find that there is no case for imposition of penalty, we do not consider it necessary to go into other aspects of the matter argued before us in this case. 6. Appeal allowed.
-
1982 (6) TMI 96
... ...
... ... ..... bservation of the CIT, knowing well that the investigation regarding entries pertaining to receipt of registration application for the official register, it cannot lend any assistance to the Revenue s case. In case on the basis of high suspicion and presumption regarding treating of entries such as alleged by the CIT, is too weak a foundation for s. 263 proceedings which shall really be very unfortunate if held in order. Without much discussion on the issue as this, according to us, does not call for, we annul the consolidated order of the CIT under s. 263 for the two assessment years under consideration. 4. We, however, may mention before parting with the issue that in case factually the accounting periods of the assessee ended on 13th Aug., 1975 for the first assessment year, why and what for the assessee should have made any effort of insertion of receipt pertaining to its application the way discussed by the CIT? 5. In the result, two appeals of the assessee are allowed.
-
1982 (6) TMI 95
... ...
... ... ..... ing the material considered by him during the original assessment the ITO discovers that he has committed an error in consequence of which income has escaped assessment it is open to him to reopen the assessment. An error discovered on a reconsideratrion of the same material does not give him that power this is exactly what the ITO has done in his case. The error if may committed at the time of original assessment has been tired to be made up by the reassessment proceedings. 9. Before we close we would like to point out that if the ITO had on the completion of the assessment of the firm M/s R.B.Sondhi and Co determined the share in the case of the minor and that share was to be include in the hands of someone s. 147(b) was not the action that entitled him to do so. We have already held that s. 147 on the facts of the case is not applicable at all., We therefore, set aside the orders of the authorities below and restore the status quo ante. 10. Appeal of the assessee allowed.
-
1982 (6) TMI 94
... ...
... ... ..... tion which cannot be taken for purpose or reopening the assessment as held by the Supreme court in that very case. 8. That is not the only reasons on the basis of which the reassessment is bad in law. The facts stated above clearly show that the ITO had considered this issue and had come to a decision. It was a merely a change of opinion and that too at the instance of the revenue audit party. We are therefore, of the opinion that neither u/s 147(a) nor u/s 147(b) could be called in aid by the ITO to reopen the assessment. The CIT (A) was right in cancelling the reassessment. 9. This will dispose of the appeal revenue. In so far the appeal of the assessee is concerned., It is based on apprehension that in case the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals) is interfered with the additions which were not considered on merits by the Id CIT(Appeals) may stand. Since we have held the reassessment proceedings to be ab initio void the appeal of the assessee becomes such. 10. Appeals dismissed
-
1982 (6) TMI 93
... ...
... ... ..... ns asked for adjournment but the ld. counsel for the assessee Mr. D.S. Gupta submitted that the instant case seems to be of a strange type because the Tribunal disposed of the issue whether the assessee had 1/3rd share in the property SCO No. 85-86 in ITA Nos. 230, 240 and 674/Chandi/80 pertaining to asst. yrs. 1972-73, 1974-75 and 1976-77 and the revenue though accepted the Tribunal finding in ITA Nos. 240 and 675 has disputed. The same only in respect of I.T.A. No. 239. 8. From perusal of the Tribunal s order it is clear that the Tribunal accepted the assessee contention regarding his ownership in the said property to the regarding his ownership in the said property to the extent 1/3rd on the strength of the Civil Court decision and for the said it relied on the decision in the case of Smt. Jaswant Kaur under the circumstances no referable question of law arises and the request of the ld. Commr. Is, therefore, rejected. 9. In the result, reference application is dismissed.
........
|
