|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 244 Records
-
1985 (1) TMI 124 - ITAT DELHI-C
Assessee's Appeal, Interest On Refund, Tribunal's Order ... ... ... ... ..... ecting the ground regarding non-payment of interest in respect of refund on the short ground that no remedy was provided under section 246(2). 10. Shri Mehra also referred us to the following two judgments for his contention that the Commissioner (Appeals) unjustifiably rejected the assessee s contention regarding payment of interest Triplicane Urban Co-operative Society Ltd. v. CIT 1980 126 ITR 125 (Mad.) and Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. v. CIT 1981 127 ITR 842 (Cal.). 11. We are not referring to the above judgment because the judgment in Mahabir Parshad and Sons case is a binding authority, which we are legally obliged to follow. Besides, we are in respectful agreement with the reasonings and the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court. In view of the above, we direct the IAC/Assessing Officer to pay interest to the appellant company in relation to refund worked out in its favour in respect of the assessment year under appeal. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1985 (1) TMI 123 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... presentative you may show-cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before any such order is made under s. 271. Thus from the aforesaid portion of the notice, it is manifest to us that the notice is valid and, therefore, the ITO has complied with the requirements to issue and serve a valid notice as he has stuck off the portions which are not relevant for the purpose of giving an opportunity for the imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee have failed to explain the delay for late filing of the returns after the completion of the firms where from the assessee were having share income being partners therein. The period is of four months as we have computed above and as such we hold that for this period the delay is not explained and the assessee are to be penalised under s. 27(1)(a). Accordingly, we direct the ITO to compute the penalty in each case. 11. In the result, the appeals are partly allowed.
-
1985 (1) TMI 122 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... and cannot be sustained. It is accordingly cancelled. 7. With regard to the direction of the AAC to pass fresh order after considering the revised return, the same direction cannot be sustained. It is for the revenue, to take action on the revised return filed by the assessee on23rd July, 1979and no special direction is necessary. Since the issue before us is limited to the validity of order dt.31st March, 1981the scope of taking into account the revised return filed on23rd July, 1979does not arise and we shall refrain from passing any direction or order in regard to the revised return and the action to be taken by the revenue Authorities. 8. With regard to the claim of refund of the self-assessment tax, also we consider it premature to consider such claim as the fate of the revised return filed on23rd July, 1979is yet to be decided. We hold accordingly and modify the directions of the AAC to the above extent. 9. The appeal of the assessee shall be treated as partly allowed.
-
1985 (1) TMI 121 - ITAT DELHI-B
Land Acquisition ... ... ... ... ..... sary to go into that aspect as the excess land found in the present case would not be much and we see no reason why the plea of the counsel of the assessee that so much of excess land should be valued on the basis of cost to the deceased should not be accepted. 19. Having discussed the above legal position, we would only set aside the matter for final disposal by the Assistant Controller in the light of our discussion for the purpose of determining the actual excess after giving an opportunity to the assessee of being heard. After that he may proceed to adopt the valuation as follows (a) In respect of the land which is not above the ceiling limit, the value at Rs. 300 per sq. yard. (b) The portion of the land which is found to be above the ceiling limit should be valued at cost. We may mention that the cost in the present case is not very much different from the compensation provided under theUrbanLand(Ceiling and Regulation) Act. 20. The appeal is allowed as indicated above.
-
1985 (1) TMI 120 - ITAT DELHI-A
... ...
... ... ..... d to have been spent for household expenses of the family and as the family itself had a capital of Rs. 20 lakhs available to it, the disallowance of interest was justified. Here the facts are wholly different. The ITO has been able to show in this case that the balances in the accounts of for the partners where in the red and that the large scale utilisation of funds by the partners for personal purpose could emanate only from the funds which had been borrowed on interest. Third decision reported in (1966) 61 IT 480 (Mad) also does not help the case of the assessee. In that case their Lordships of the Madras High Court that declined to interfere with the finding of fact given by the Tribunal that there was no positive material to show that the moneys borrowed by the assessee in that case were utilised for non-business purposes. 7. In conclusion we would reverse the order passed by the CIT (A) and restore they one passed by the ITO. The appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed.
-
1985 (1) TMI 119 - ITAT DELHI-A
... ...
... ... ..... manner that these did not permit proper deduction of profits therefrom. We would, therefore, uphold the order of the AAC that the provision of s. 145 were applicable. The sales estimated by the AAC also appear to us to be reasonable in the various assessment years and, therefore, we would reflect ground No. 1 (iv). In the Revenue s appeal for the asst. yr. 1970-71 to 1978-79 and appeals Nos. 2782 to 2786 filed by the assessee for the asst. yr. 1975-76 to 1979-80 and ground No. 4 in the cross objections filed by the assessee. 21. There is one other ground identically taken in five appeals by the assessee regarding the non allowance of interest out of his business income. We find that there is no substance in it as the profit of the assessee from furniture business had been determined by applying a reasonable net rate of profit. 22. In the result while the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed in part, the cross objections and the appeals filed by the assessee are rejected.
-
1985 (1) TMI 118 - ITAT DELHI-A
... ...
... ... ..... ision under s. 48 of the IT Act to compulsorily set off the capital load of the earlier years in order to work out the income chargeable under the head Capital Gains . As against those facts, the facts in the asst. yr. 1977-78 are wholly distinguishable. In this assessment year the assessee in fact did not have any taxable income under the head Capital Gains . The assessee had actually suffered a net loss of Rs. 2,18,598 after adjusting the capital gains of Rs. 5,994 and Rs. 46,104. In these circumstances then in fact there were no capital gains includible in the total income of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1977-78, there was no question of excluding any sum from the chargeable profits under r. 1(i) of the First Sch. of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. the ground No. 2 in the asst. yr. 1977-78 will, therefore, fail. 7. In the result while the appeals on the asst. yrs. 1976-77, 1978-79 and 1979-80 are allowed, the appeal for the asst. yr. 1977-78 is allowed in part.
-
1985 (1) TMI 117 - ITAT DELHI-A
... ...
... ... ..... a voluminous paper book showing that he has no connection with the smuggled goods and he was not owner of the gold in question. The evidence produced by the assessee remained unrebutted. Thus from the material on record it is not established that the assessee was owner of the gold in question. It was also not recovered from his possession. Even the preponderance of probabilities would go to show that the assessee was not the owner of the gold in question. Thus Department fallen to prove the ingredients of s. 69A of the Act. Thus ld. CIT(A) was not correct in holding that assessee was the owner of 3/5th of the seized gold in question. It is also not established that the assessee had been doing smuggled activities. So, no income from such activity can be added in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly all the additions made are deleted. 17. In the result the Appeal No. 2447 and C.O. No. 207 (Del) 82 by the assessee are allowed and Appeal No. 2459 by the Department is dismissed.
-
1985 (1) TMI 116 - ITAT DELHI-A
Mistake Apparent From Record, Provisional Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... airly admitted by Shri Ganesan that depreciation is being allowed to the assessee on the basis of actual use for hiring purposes in the past also. It is, however, stated that hiring charges are taxed as income from other sources under section 56(2)(ii) of the Act and, therefore, the claim for depreciation is to be considered under section 57(ii) of the Act, which in turn means under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. It is stated that that clause nowhere prescribes that the machinery or plant should be actually put to use for hiring. It is sufficient if the machinery or plant is ready for use. The departmental representative strongly relied on the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). We are in agreement with the Commissioner (Appeals) that unless used, the machinery or plant does not qualify for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii). This ground is, therefore, rejected. 20. This para is not reproduced here as it involves minor issue. 21. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1985 (1) TMI 115 - ITAT DELHI-A
Charitable Or Religious Trust, Income From Property, Previous Year ... ... ... ... ..... n 17-5-1976 is not an investment made by way of accumulation of income of that year. In other words, that amount was free and available for being invested. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in treating that deposit, which was lying as a deposit simpliciter without being earmarked as a deposit to be made for the purpose of the option exercised for this year. Therefore, the argument advanced on behalf of the assessee by the learned senior advocate, Shri G.C. Sharma, can be accepted though for a slightly different reason. In view of our conclusion as above, we do not think it necessary to discuss the example given by the learned senior advocate for the assessee though that example set us on thinking. 10. For these reasons, we hold the view taken by the authorities below does not seem proper and just. We accept the assessee s appeal and allow its claim, The ITO is directed to modify the assessment in accordance with the above conclusions. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1985 (1) TMI 114 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... cting the collection charges. The AAC reduced the multiplying factor by directing the WTO to allow collection charges on the same basis of the income-tax assessment. 5. The assessee is aggrieved and has come up in appeal before us. After hearing S/Shri R. Ganeshan and R.K. Sharma, we see no merit. With the introduction of r. 1BB w.e.f. 1st April, 1979 the term gross maintainable rent has also been defined in the rule bringing on part with that of the IT Act. As such while the house is let and the annual rent received or receivable by the owner in respect thereof is in excess of the sum referred to in sub-cl. (i), the amount so received or receivable shall be the gross maintainable rent. That being the case there is no question of manipulation with the actual rent received. With regard to the multiplying factor also 100/9 directed by the AAC to be taken in the instant case cannot be said to be excessive. It is accordingly upheld. 6. In the result the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1985 (1) TMI 113 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... ealth. The GTO, in his capacity as WTO having assessed the fixed deposits standing in the name of the assessee s wife as the assessee s own wealth in his assessment order dt. 10th Jun, 1981 passed in pursuance of he order of the Settlement Commission, cannot turn round and say that the very same deposits constituted gifts made by the assessee to his wife and tax them by gift-tax order dt. 15th March, 1982. In the same manner, the WTO, for the WT assessment year 1976-77, accepted the assessee s statement that the fixed deposit standing in his wife s name of Rs. 25,000 dt. 2nd April, 1976 constituted his own wealth. Further, the WTO did not mention that he is assessing those fixed deposits as the assessee s wealth under s. 4(1) (a) (i) of the WT Act, 1957. So in the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the GTO is not justified in treating Rs. 84,330 and Rs. 25,000 as gifts for the asst. yrs. 1977-78 and 1977-78 respectively. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
1985 (1) TMI 112 - ITAT COCHIN
Amnesty Scheme, Assessing Officer, Business Premises, Penalty For Concealment ... ... ... ... ..... orders of the learned CIT (Appeals). The CIT (Appeals) apparent granted relief to the assessee in terms of the amnesty scheme. This is to be upheld. Further, in this case, for default under section 271(1)(a) in the filing of the original returns, penalty has been levied in the reassessment proceedings in disregard of the bar of limitation provided for under section 275 of the I.T. Act. If there was default in the filing of the original returns under section 139(1), action under section 271(1)(a) should have been initiated in the course of the original assessment proceedings and penalty should have been levied within the time allowed under section 275. The original assessments in these cases were completed on 23-12-1982. The time limit for levy of penalty would expire on 31-3-1985 whereas penalty has been imposed in all these cases on 17-3-1989, which is clearly barred by limitation and as such the same is cancelled. 10. In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed.
-
1985 (1) TMI 111 - ITAT COCHIN
Capital Gains, Gross Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... e chargeable income. The amount worked out under section 54 is similar to income totally exempted under section 10 of the Act. The deduction under section 80T relates to an income chargeable under the head Capital gains . It cannot operate with regard to an amount which does not form part of the amount chargeable under the head Capital gains . As already stated, the amount worked out under section 54 is not chargeable to income-tax and is not to be deemed to be the income of the previous year by virtue of section 45. If the position is otherwise, an assessee can claim relief under section 80T even when the entire amount of capital gains is exempt under section 54. The contention of the assessee that the amount worked out under section 54 should be treated as part of the gross total income for the purpose of working out the deduction under section 80T cannot, therefore, be accepted. The appeal of the assessee has, therefore, to fail. 11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1985 (1) TMI 110 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... against the principles of natural justice more so when the fine is imposed in proceedings of criminal nature. We also agree that the first requirement of notice was beyond the purview of s. 131. It is not a document to be produced by the assessee. On the contrary it is an information which is sought from the assessee. The assessee had appeared before the ITO and the ITO could record a statement on this point for knowing about the above facts. Secondly, for the other two requirements of the notice the assessee could be under bona fide belief that terms thereof could not be complied with for want of proper jurisdiction. We also agree with Shri Gupta that remedy for the default committed by the assessee in refusing to sign the statement does not lie under s. 131(2). The ITO has such exceeded his jurisdiction under s. 131(2). In view of the above discussions we are unable to sustain the orders of the authorities below. They are annulled. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1985 (1) TMI 109 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... page 7. It is mentioned there that the production of fine chemicals is calculated in kilogram only. When we come to the unit of million cubic meter, it presupposes gases, which are classified in heavy chemicals . 7. There is hardly any ambiguity with what the company was manufacturing, in which the shares were held by the assessee, were heavy chemical and we need not go to the alternative submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee that in case of any ambiguity, meaning beneficial to the assessee has to be adopted. According to us, there is neither any ambiguity nor confusion about meaning of heavy chemicals . Since the entire decision in this matter turns on the issue whether the gases manufactured by the assessee-company in which she had shares, were heavy chemicals and we have held as such, the assessee is entitled to exemption under s. 5(1)(xxa) r/w s. 45(d). the action of the two lower authorities is, therefore, hereby reversed. 8. In the result, appeals are allowed.
-
1985 (1) TMI 108 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Mistake Apparent From Record, Provisional Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... e revenue because of distinction in facts. If this judgment is gone through carefully, it, on the other hand, supports the contention of the assessee. Regarding the other part of the assessee s contention that computation of relief employed for section 80J relief could not be on proportionate basis, this is true that in the case of Simpson and Co., even special leave petition stands dismissed. But these cases support the contention of the assessee so far merit is concerned. 8. Here, in short, to summarise the finding and issue in the background is that in the course of provisional assessment proceedings deduction what was not a prima facie disallowance could not be made and demanding rectification of the same was a mistake apparent from record and there could not be any debate about the same. In the light of above discussion and for the reasons given by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order, his action is hereby confirmed. 9. In the result, the revenue s appeal is dismissed
-
1985 (1) TMI 107 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
1961 Act, Equity Shares ... ... ... ... ..... there that the production of fine chemicals is calculated in kg. only. When we come to the unit of million cubic meter, it presupposes gases, which are classified in heavy chemicals . 7. There is hardly any ambiguity with that what the company was manufacturing in which the shares were held by the assessee, were heavy chemicals and we need not go to the alternative submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that in case of any ambiguity, meaning beneficial to the assessee has to be adopted. According to us, there is neither any ambiguity nor confusion about the meaning of heavy chemicals . Since the entire decision in this matter turns on the issue whether the gases manufactured by the assessee-company, in which she had shares, were heavy chemicals and we have held as such, the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(xxa) read with section 45(d). The action of the two lower authorities is, therefore, hereby reversed. 8. In the result, appeals are allowed.
-
1985 (1) TMI 106 - ITAT CALCUTTA-D
... ...
... ... ..... arly the Tribunal has also not considered the issue because it was not before them. The matter has not been settled against the assessee in any of the years. On the contrary, as we have stated above, the case is in favour of the assessee because of the authorities quoted above. Again, we find that the orders of rectification passed by the ITO were too cryptic and not speaking because he has not dealt with the objection raised by the assessee against the proposed rectification. A non-speaking order is not sustainable in law vide the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sampat Tatyeda AIR 1974 SC 791. We also find force in the contention that a dubious conclusion in favour of he Department, on the other hand, can be arrived at only by a long-drawn out process of reasoning which is outside the purview of s. 154 of the Act. For the above reasons, we cancel the rectification orders for all the four years under consideration. 9. In the result, the four appeals are allowed.
-
1985 (1) TMI 105 - ITAT CALCUTTA-D
Audit Objection, Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Orders Prejudicial To Interests ... ... ... ... ..... ture of Rs. 71,642. It is urged that the claim of the assessee in this respect may be allowed. 21. We have heard the learned departmental representative as well on this point. We have perused the order of the Commissioner for our consideration along with the submissions made on behalf of the assessee. In our opinion, there is substance and force in the submissions made on behalf of the assessee. Admittedly, Rs. 71,642 related to the cost of construction of those items which were not in existence as per the earlier list, which was prepared at the time when the lease was taken. In this view of the matter, we deem fit that only Rs. 71,642 should be treated as capital in nature and not Rs. 1 lakh as done by the Commissioner. The balance of the expenditure should be treated as revenue in nature. To this extent, the order of the Commissioner is modified. The ITO would please work out the relief admissible accordingly. 22. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed.
............
|
