|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 237 Records
-
1983 (3) TMI 118 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... to their Lordships, the assessee does not claim to be the full owner of the machinery in question. On the contrary, in the present appeal the facts are entirely different. The appellant in the present appeal has categorically shown that the appellant is the full owner of half of the property. Further, in the present case income from letting out of an asset has been assessed to the extent of half share in the hands of the assessee. It also cannot be denied that the assessee is the full owner of half share which was used for earning half share of income. We, therefore, hold in the present case that the entire income assessed in the hands of the assessee is attributable to full extent of ownership in that proportionate part of the asset which yielded income though such extent was only a half share with reference to the total asset. We, therefore, hold that the assessee is entitled to grant of depreciation on the facts of the present case. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1983 (3) TMI 117 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Assessment Order, Order With Appellate Order, Subject Matter ... ... ... ... ..... assessment made by the ITO, that perhaps is certainly beyond the scope of the Commissioner in his revisional jurisdiction under section 263. It is quite possible that in an assessment there are additions made by the ITO on his own to which the provisions of section 144B are not applicable and additions made to which the provisions of section 144B are applicable. If the Commissioner happens to find an error in the conclusions arrived at by the ITO on his own, which has caused prejudice to the interests of the revenue, it may perhaps be open to the Commissioner to interfere, but, certainly not with regard to those additions where the procedure under section 144B is followed and the instructions of the IAC are implemented. 4. It is for the above reasons I felt that more rational view would be to agree with the view expressed by my learned brother Shri P.V.B. Rao, Vice President (NZ), while I only added a few lines to give expression to the thoughts that were passing in my mind.
-
1983 (3) TMI 116 - ITAT DELHI-E
... ...
... ... ..... m as on the expiry of the previous year relevant to asst. yr. 1974-75 so as to enable to assessee to compute the value of his interest in the partnership firm, as contemplated in r. 2, Wealth-tax Rules. Learned counsel for the assessee also submitted in this regard that assessee was, in law, under no obligation to file return of net wealth on estimate basis and that requirement of s. 14(1), WT Act in the matter of verification in the prescribed manner of the particulars to be mentioned in the return in the prescribed form mitigated against revenue rsquo s suggestion that assessee ought to have filed return of net wealth on estimate basis. In the result, we have no hesitation in concluding that Commissioner rsquo s finding of fact as to existence of reasonable cause calls for no interference. We hold accordingly. Revenue fails. Note mdash Para Nos. 6 to 11 are related to other parties to the case and deal with matter identical to the above. Hence they are not being reproduced.
-
1983 (3) TMI 115 - ITAT DELHI-E
Partner In Firm, Partnership Firm, Protective Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... ny doubt about the ITO s right to make a protective assessment. This was readily conceded by Shri Sampath himself. However, I do find substance in the claim for the assessee that the protective assessment has been made for reasons which are wholly bad in law. This is because of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Philip John Plasket Thomas. The facts on record clearly show that at the time of the cash gifts Shri Hari Ram Gupta and Smt. Annapurna Devi Gupta were not the father-in-law and the mother-in-law of the assessee. That came about much later. Hence, there is no question of applying section 64(1)(vi) in this case. In this view of the matter, the ITO s observations with regard to the applicability of such a provision have no legal basis. Assessment of such share income has to be assessed in the assessee s own name and in her own right. To this extent the objections for the assessee are sustained. 7. The appeal is deemed to be allowed for statistical purposes.
-
1983 (3) TMI 114 - ITAT DELHI-D
Question Of Law, Reference Application ... ... ... ... ..... development rebate was raised. The additional question now sought to be raised is relating to another issue which was considered by the Tribunal in para 5 of its order. The question regarding the development rebate was considered in para 6. In our opinion, an applicant has to make up his mind about the issue which he wants to take before the High Court within the time permitted under the law and he cannot be permitted to raise questions on fresh issues later on. We would have agreed with the learned counsel for the assessee if the additional question raised also related to an aspect of the claim for development rebate. In such circumstances, we are of the view that only one question of law can be referred to the Hon ble High Court. The assessee s request for referring the other question is, therefore, rejected. We now proceed to draw up a statement of case regarding the question of law being referred. 7. to 9. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues .
-
1983 (3) TMI 113 - ITAT DELHI-C
Assessment Order, Assessment Proceedings, Reassessment Proceedings, Reference To IAC ... ... ... ... ..... not lay down the correct law . . . We would, therefore, follow this decision in Muthiah Chettiar s case 1969 74 ITR 183 (SC) which being a decision of a Bench of three judges of this Court, is binding upon us, and following that decision, we hold that the assessee could not be said to have concealed her income by not disclosing in the return filed by her the amounts representing the shares of her husband and minor daughter in the two partnership firms. 18. For all these reasons, we cannot agree with the learned counsel for the assessee that the provisions of section 144B do not apply to a reassessment made under section 147. 19. We would, therefore, consider it appropriate to set aside the order of the AAC and would restore the appeal to his file with a direction that all the grounds raised by the assessee should be decided on merits and according to law. 20. In the result, the appeal as well as the cross-objection shall be treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
1983 (3) TMI 112 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... e amount under s. 40A(5). However, the said perquisite should be limited to the amount actually assessed in the hands of the employees. The ITO is accordingly directed to recompute the disallowable amount under s. 40A(5) on this basis. 18. The last ground that survives for our consideration is regarding disallowance of the following items (a) Donation of Deaf and dumb Society Rs. 250 (b) Contribution to Haryana Basket Ball Association Rs. 50 (c) Contribution to Ramlila Society Rs. 21 (d) Payment to Alla Ram, Peon Rs. 75 (e) Bakshish on Holi and Diwali Rs. 80 (f) For want of details Rs. 1,411 At the time of hearing, Shri K. K. Jain, the ld. counsel of the assessee graciously decided not to press the ground of appeal as the amount involved being petty. However, this is made without prejudice to the assessee rsquo s right to raise the same subsequently in the subsequent assessment years. It is accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 19. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1983 (3) TMI 111 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... to disagree with the CIT(A) rsquo s finding that these articles cannot be described as personal effects. There is also point made by the ITO that the sale of such articles to a trust cannot be easily reconciled with the compulsive daily devotions of the assessee. In these circumstances, we would confirm the CIT(A) order on this point. 13. The next objection is that the CIT(A) erred in not directing the ITO to allow deduction under s. 80T on gross capital gain. Here we find the CIT(A) has merely restored the matter to the file of the ITO for disposing of the assessee rsquo s objection in this regard. Hence there can be no grievance on the part of the assessee. Shri Hari Har Lal submitted that the decision in the case of Cloth Traders P. Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (1979) 10 CTR (SC) 393 (1979) 118 ITR 243 (SC) would be applicable here. The ITO will no doubt keep this aspect also in view of the de novo proceedings. In the result, both the appeals and the cross objections are dismissed.
-
1983 (3) TMI 110 - ITAT DELHI-A
... ...
... ... ..... ds, he has added it to the so-called closing stock. If that is so, the opening stock of the next year should have been increased to that extent but it has not been done. The ITO proceeded on the basis of the opening stock disclosed by the assessee for the subsequent year and this would again show that the ITO was in error in trying to make out a case of under production. The ITO has not brought out any material to show that the assessee sold any goods outside the books of account as after all when there is under production it must go somewhere. Otherwise what earthly use would be there for an assessee to show under production. On the whole we are therefore fully satisfied that the ITO has failed to make out a case for rejecting the book results and reasons given by him are not at all convincing. The order of the AAC is accordingly upheld. 13. The cross objection was not pressed at the time of hearing. 14. In the result, the appeal as well as the cross objection are dismissed.
-
1983 (3) TMI 109 - ITAT DELHI-A
Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... if any, secured, employed or exhausted in the process. The question must be viewed in the larger context of business necessity or expediency. I have already mentioned that the object and the nature of the expenditure are very relevant. Even bearing in mind these aspects in a case where it is found that a lessee paid premium within the meaning of the Transfer of Property Act, the same must be held to be capital in nature as it is a payment for the purpose of acquiring the capital asset. Similarly the decision of the Supreme Court reported in L.H. Sugar Factory and Oil Mills is of no help in deciding a matter like the present one. 10. For the foregoing reasons I am of the opinion, that the premium paid in, this case is capital in nature and, therefore, cannot be deducted as the revenue expenditure. I accordingly endorse the view taken by the learned Accountant Member. The matter will have to be placed before the Bench for passing the order in conformity with the majority view.
-
1983 (3) TMI 108 - ITAT DELHI-A
Attributable To, Business Connection ... ... ... ... ..... also mention here that even if the revenue filed appeals for those years, they have not challenged the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals). We, therefore, see no reason to reject such a claim on a technical plea. We direct the ITO to verify the figures and allow the same in the same way as has been done by the Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77. 12. In the cross-objections for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77, the common question is about rule 115B and the same has to be applied as has already been indicated above. No other ground is pressed in the cross-objections. We may also add that even for other years, the ITO will have to apply rule 115B while taxing the income as directed by us. 13. In the result, the appeals are treated as allowed in part, the cross-objections for the assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74 are dismissed and the cross-objections for the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77 are allowed in part.
-
1983 (3) TMI 107 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... ssions. We are not satisfied that this is a fit case which attracts the levy of penalty. On the admitted facts, there had been only a delay for two complete months. As already stated, the assessee is a registered firm having substantial turnover. For filing the return, the assessee has to finalise the accounts and ascertain the profits. It is not as though the income accrues every day and it is possible for the assessee to declare the income without cross-check. In such cases, the assessee may require a reasonable time in order to enable the assessee to furnish full and correct particulars of the income and the assistance of an accountant in such matters. We do not, therefore, see any reason why the explanation offered by the assessee should be rejected. We are satisfied that the assessee had reasonable cause for not filing the return before 21st December 1978. No penalty is, therefore, exigible on the facts of the case. We accordingly allow the appeal and cancel the penalty.
-
1983 (3) TMI 106 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... een indicated by the ITO that depreciation has been taken into account in computing the income from the taxis and, therefore the depreciation is only for that assessment year, namely 1974-75, that could be the subject matter of the provisions of s. 41 (2). Reliance is placed in this regard on the decision of the Supreme Court in Madava Upendra Sinai vs. Union of India and Ors. (1975) 98 ITR 209 (SC). The departmental representative has only pointed out that for the asst. yr. 1973-74 the assessee himself had calculated the profit after taking into account the depreciation allowance. We are of the opinion that in the facts of this case it must be held that depreciation has been allowed only for the asst. yr. 1974-75 and, therefore, the withdrawal of depreciation contemplated u/s. 41 (2) should be confined only to the depreciation that is deemed to have been allowed for the asst. yr. 1974-75. The ITO is directed to modify the assessment accordingly. The appeal is party allowed.
-
1983 (3) TMI 105 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... e requested for further extension of time from 1st October, 1975. The conduct of the assessee was conscious of his statutory obligations and was not acting in defiance or disregard of his obligations. It is only because the assessee shows that the assessee was unable to file the return within that period the assessee had made the representations. In the case of a firm reasonable time is required for finalising the accounts and it is only on finalising the accounts the correct particulars of the income which is to be returned can be ascertained. The assessee had explained that due to the illness of the accountant the assessee was unable to file the return. The explanation in the circumstances of the case is acceptable. We are satisfied that the assessee has shown reasonable cause for the default. There was, therefore, no justification for levying any penalty. We accordingly cancel the penalty levied by the ITO and confirmed by the AAC. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1983 (3) TMI 104 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... property would constitute information is a debatable issue. This is more so because in the case of Sakaralal Balabhai, the Hon ble High Court held that the report of the valuer for purposes of wealth-tax assessment constituted information for purposes of s. 147 (b) of the IT Act, 1961. Against this there is a clear cut consideration of the relevant provisions of WT Act itself by the Rajasthan High Court. Therefore, at worst it can be said that there are two reasonable views possible on the question whether Valuation Officer s report obtained after the original assessment can constitute information for purposes of initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 17 (1) (b) of the Act. In such a situation, the construction that favours the subject has to be adopted on the basis of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. It can, therefore, be said that on this basis also the reassessment proceedings were bad in law. These were rightly cancelled by the AAC. 9. Appeal dismissed.
-
1983 (3) TMI 103 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... t facilities were enjoyed and overdraft was obtained by the assessee, actually belonged to M/s Ashoka Cotton Co. and M/s Sukhdev Murarilal. The CIT(A), as per para 14(c) of his order, found the truth by going through seized record even and came to accept the contentions of the assessee on that strength, which does not deserve to be disturbed. Reliance of the ld. departmental representative on the case of Coimbatore Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. is misplaced because of difference in facts of the instant case and the case cited by the ld. departmental representative. As above said, all that can be said about this case is that there was heavier burden on the assessee in such cases where different statements are given before the bank and before the IT Authorities. The assessee has discharged the same in the instant case. In the light of above discussion and for the reasons given by the CIT(A) in his order, his action is confirmed. 7. In the result, revenue s appeal is dismissed.
-
1983 (3) TMI 102 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Fixed Assets, New Industrial Undertaking, Own Capital, Per Annum, Profits And Gains, Sales Promotion
-
1983 (3) TMI 101 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Business Expenditure, Development Allowance, Entertainment Expenditure, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... OT 150 (Bom.) The learned departmental representative in respect of this contention placed his reliance on the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. After taking into consideration the rival submissions and looking to the facts, we are unable to interfere in the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of the three items. The assessee does not have any case of weighted deduction in respect of Rs. 447 when the same have been disallowed as entertainment expenses. The assessee s claim in respect of other two items is also rejected as per principles laid down by the Special Bench and the reasoning given therein. Consistently, the Tribunal Benches all over India are against the assessee pertaining to claim of weighted deduction in respect of items which result either as a difference in exchange rate or value of export or as freight, insurance, etc. The action of the Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, in this regard is confirmed. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1983 (3) TMI 100 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Agricultural Land, Capital Asset, Capital Gains, Fair Market Value ... ... ... ... ..... e Court in the case of Groz-Beckert Saboo Ltd. In our considered opinion, the ratio decidendi of the judgment of the Supreme Court in this case supports the proposition that in case capital gains arising from the sale of agricultural land is to be brought to tax, the assessee should have an option to substitute its cost on the date from which agricultural land due to amendment in law referred to above became an asset. This view we have already taken in the case of Amber Industries (P.) Ltd. IT Appeal No. 250 of 1981, dated 18-11-1982 which has been referred to above. But since we have held that the capital gains arising from the sale of land wherever located are not liable to tax in case the land was actually used for agricultural purposes, this issue actually does not survive for our consideration. Therefore, we are not issuing any directions to ITO to work out the capital gains by taking the cost of the asset as on 28-2-1970 or 1-4-1970 for this purpose. 8. Appeals allowed.
-
1983 (3) TMI 99 - ITAT CALCUTTA-C
... ...
... ... ..... oversight, inadvertence or mistake of the ITO, it could fall within s. 34(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1922 and if the ITO had discovered that he had committed an error in consequence of which income had escaped assessment, it was open to him to reopen the assessment. This proposition was held to have been stated too widely and to travel farther than the statute warranted. It was held that an error discovered upon a reconsideration of the same matter did not give such a power to the ITO. 3. It is correct that this decision takes a somewhat different view of law than what was taken by their Lordships in R.K. Malhotra, ITO vs. Kasturbhai Lalbhai 1977 CTR (SC) 336 (1977) 109 ITR 537 (SC) but since this is a later decision and the earlier decisions have been considered therein, we are expected to follow the same. In view of the position of law as it emerges out at present, we are of the opinion that there is no ground for us to interfere in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed.
............
|
