|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 241 Records
-
1985 (4) TMI 121 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... Hon rsquo ble M. P. High Court in (1982) 135 ITR 591 (MP). We have gone through the above decision, but we find that it is not relevant to the issue involved. In the above case a commission of Rs. 16,400 which was paid by the assessee in cash was disallowed and there was no evidence to show that there were exceptional and unavoidable circumstance necessitating payment in cash. The disallowance of Rs. 16,400 made by the ITO was upheld by the Tribunal and when the assessee took up the matter in reference, the Hon rsquo ble High Court upheld the view taken by the Tribunal. In the present case, however, the assessee has led evidence to show that payment in cash was made to the sellers under exceptional and unavoidable circumstances and, hence, the ratio of the above decision would not apply to the facts of the present case. 10. For the reason stated above, we delete the disallowance of Rs. 40,092 made by the ITO and upheld by the CIT(A). 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1985 (4) TMI 120 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
Industrial Undertaking, Investment Allowance, Person Resident In India, Profits And Gains ... ... ... ... ..... statute . Therefore, we granted investment allowance subject to the ITO s satisfaction regarding the other conditions like creation of reserve, etc. We also granted section 80J relief and we directed that this claim should be considered afresh. What we have held with regard to the other 10 crafts of dredgers which are considered as ships for purposes of investment allowance as well as section 80J relief, equally apply to Tug No. IV which is the subject-matter of the reassessment and the appeal thereunder. We, therefore, hold that in view of our previous order, which we intend to follow while disposing of this appeal, there are no grounds to disallow the investment allowance as well as section 80J relief, with regard to Tug No. IV. Both the reliefs were correctly granted according to us by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and, therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with his order. 5. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed as it is found without substance.
-
1985 (4) TMI 119 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Provident Fund ... ... ... ... ..... ssessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76. 2. The order passed by the Hyderabad Bench B in the case of ITO v. J. and J. Dechane Lab. (P.) Ltd. IT Appeal Nos. 1563, 1564 and 1575 (Hyd.) of 1982, dated 17-8-1983 for the assessment years 1978-79 to 1980-81. 3. Our own order as the Hyderabad Bench B passed in the case of Nath Laboratories (P.) Ltd. v. ITO IT Appeal Nos. 145 and 146 (Hyd.) of 1982, dated 29-3-1983 for the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79. 4. The order of the Madras Bench B in ITO v. Raab Pipe Works (P.) Ltd. 1982 1 SOT 198. Ultimately, we hold that no part of the contribution made by the assessee-company towards the scheme framed under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act should be disallowed. Therefore, we hold that the amount of Rs. 3,632 paid as contribution of the assessee-company towards provident fund of its managing director, Shri Janardhana Rao, should be allowed in full under section 36(1)(iv). 7. In the result, the appeal succeeds.
-
1985 (4) TMI 118 - ITAT DELHI-E
Appeals, Co-extensive Jurisdiction Of Tribunal With IAC ... ... ... ... ..... ght to play any role. This is clear from a bare reading of the following provision of section 186(1), which is relevant for the present appeal If where a firm has been registered, or its registration has effect under sub-section (7) of section 184 for an assessment year, the Income-tax Officer is of opinion that there was during the previous year no genuine firm in existence as registered, he may, after giving the firm a reasonable opportunity of being heard and with the previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, cancel the registration of the firm for that assessment year Provided that no such cancellation shall be made after the expiry of eight years from the end of the assessment year in respect of which registration has been granted or has effect. 10. While dismissing this revenue appeal, we should not be taken to have expressed any opinion in respect of the other years, for which the ITO has passed order under section 186(1). 11. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1985 (4) TMI 117 - ITAT DELHI-E
Development Allowance, Raw Material, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... of interpretation that there is no scope for importing into the statute words which are not there and that if there, been a casus omissus, the defect can be remedied only by legislation. These decisions cannot be availed of by the department on the facts of the present case. In the case of H.M. Sons, following the decision of the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Radhey Mohan Narain, the Tribunal had held that the activity of preparing bed sheets from plain cloth amounted to processing of goods and that the assessee satisfied the requirements of Explanation (a) to section 35B(1A). Looking to the above discussion, we are of the view that on the facts of the present case, the assessee was entitled to be treated as a small-scale exporter and to be entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B in accordance with law. The ITO is, accordingly, directed to consider the assessee s claim on that basis. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
-
1985 (4) TMI 116 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... lue of the closing stock was more than the book value. This can be supported very easily with reference to the sales made on the last few days of or the first few days after the accounting year ended. Since no evidence was led by the Revenue to show that the market value of the closing stock was less, the Revenue cannot assume that it is less by 20 per cent and apply r. 2B. Rule 2B(2) can be applied only when there is evidence to show that the market vale was less than the book value by 20 per cent. Merely rate of gross profit does not mean that the market value would be more than the book value. Sole dependence on the rate of gross profit for the purpose of determining the market value for the purpose of application of r. 2B(2) is not safe. We are therefore, of the opinion that the AAC was right in deleting the additions made. We also follow with respect the views expressed by the earlier Benches of the Tribunal refereed to above. 4. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
-
1985 (4) TMI 115 - ITAT DELHI-D
Bona Fide, Cash System, Change In Method, Mercantile System, Plant And Machinery ... ... ... ... ..... t allowance would be allowed in respect of the entire plant and machinery used by the concern without making any attempt to determine the number of days on which each machinery actually worked double or triple shift during the relevant previous year. This being a circular beneficial to the assessee and it not having been shown that this circular was not applicable for the assessment year in question, we are of the view that the claim made by the assessee was justified and that it should have been accepted. A similar view was taken by the Tribunal, in the following decisions, copies of which have been filed by the assessee in its paper book Order dated 29-9-1977 of Delhi Bench S in Hindustan Cococu Wire Ltd. v. ITO IT Appeal No. 5295 (Delhi) of 1975-76 and order dated 4-9-1984 of Delhi Bench B of the Tribunal in ITO v. Hindustan Cococu Wire Ltd. IT Appeal No. 2169 (Delhi) of 1983 . We hold accordingly. 8 to 13. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.
-
1985 (4) TMI 114 - ITAT DELHI-A
... ...
... ... ..... at s. 64 applies in the case of an individual and not the firm, hence the addition in the case of the firm is not warranted on the face of it as we read s. 64 pure and simple. The addition stands deleted. I.T.A No. 3513 (Del) of 1983, succeeds and stands allowed. 7. That apart, a bare reading of the section makes it clear that it does not apply on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, since the gifts are from uncles to their nephews, who are all major and in this view of the matter the addition of interest as income of the firm or else that of the assessees is not warranted. We like to make it very categorical and clear that the facts reproduced above as a family tree as also about factums of gifts vis-a-vis donors and dones have not been controverted to by the ld. Departmental Representative and further it has not been controverted to that all the dones are major. No other issue being there, all the appeals by the assesses (partners) also succeed and stand allowed.
-
1985 (4) TMI 113 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... nted to furnish further materials for deciding the issue. It was submitted by the ld. counsel that it was not necessary to do so as this assessment year is concerned as the annual value included in the assessment is only Rs. 3,740 and as it is not necessary to prolong the present assessment proceedings. We would make it clear that it would be open for the assessee to agitate the matter by furnishing particulars in any assessments that may be made hereafter, in which case the ITO will naturally decide the issue by applying the decision of the Kerala High Court to the materials available. But on the materials available in the present case, we hold, by applying the decision of the Kerala High Court, that the ground floor and the first floor have to be treated as separate house properties. If so, the assessee s claim for exemption is not sustainable in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahamudabad Properties. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1985 (4) TMI 112 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... in its order dt. 7th Feb., 1984 in the case of Travancore Tea Estate Co. Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No. 647/Coch/1982). 7. The Department had also relied upon the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. vs. IAC (1985) 11 ITD 733 (Pune). A contrary view seems to have been taken by this Bench of the Tribunal as that Bench subjected to the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court and as it would appear that the Bombay High Court had taken a particular view in the case of CIT vs. Sakseria Cotton Mills Ltd. (1980) 124 ITR 570 (Bom). As far as this Tribunal is concerned, it is bound to follow the decision of the Special Bench in the absence of a decision to the contrary by the Supreme Court or the Kerala High Court. We, therefore, hold that the revision was incompetent. 8. In view of the above finding, it is not necessary to go into the correctness of the valuation of the property. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the CWT is set aside.
-
1985 (4) TMI 111 - ITAT COCHIN
A Firm, A Partner, Assessment Year, House Property, Industrial Undertaking, Processing Of Goods, Purchase Price, Valuation Date
-
1985 (4) TMI 110 - ITAT COCHIN
Appeals, Co-extensive Jurisdiction Of Tribunal With IAC ... ... ... ... ..... filed by the department have to fail. 6. The ground taken in the cross-objections filed by the assessee is that the AAC erred in not recording a finding on the validity of the rectification orders by declining to pronounce upon the contention and that the AAC should be deemed to have decided the issue against the assessee. The position is well settled that the powers under section 154 can be exercised only if the mistake is an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. In the present case, both the AAC and the Tribunal have taken a view different from the one taken by the ITO and it is, therefore, clearly a debatable issue on which there could be two opinions. We, therefore, hold that the rectification orders are also not legally sustainable. 7. In the result, the appeals by the department are dismissed and the cross-objections by the assessee are allowed.
-
1985 (4) TMI 109 - ITAT COCHIN
Annual Value, Assessment Proceedings, House Property, Let Out, Reassessment Proceedings, Vacancy Allowance
-
1985 (4) TMI 108 - ITAT COCHIN
Chargeable Profits, Previous Year, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... not stopped by using the word income which was quite sufficient to cover all items of income which could be brought to tax under the 1961 Act, in view of the inclusive definition of the term under section 2(24) of the 1961 Act. The definition is operative for the Surtax Act also in view of section 2(9). The expression used by the Legislature in rule 1 in the First Schedule is income, profits and gains and other sums . The rule of ejusdem generis will apply to the interpretation of the words other sums . It should, therefore, be sums which are akin to income, profits and gains , which are included in the total income of the previous year. As admittedly, the amount transferred to the reserve fund has not come out of the total income of the previous year, as computed under the 1961 Act, it cannot be excluded from such total income under rule 1 of the First Schedule. The assessee s claim for exclusion of the amount has, therefore, to fail. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1985 (4) TMI 107 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... siness and that the son had contributed Rs. 1 lakh as capital. It was held by the High Court that On the face of this transaction no gift is involved. But the finding of the Gift-tax Officer as to the existence of a gift and the liability to pay tax thereon was not challenged by the assessee. Assuming, therefore, that the transaction was in the nature, of a gift, even so, as rightly, in our view, found by the Tribunal, consideration in the sum Rs. 1,00,000 had passed from the son to the father for the benefits conferred on the son by being admitted in the partnership. The capital brought in, in the present case, cannot be said to be illusory or totally inadequate. The incoming partner, who had experience in the business earlier, had come in as an active partner. Under the circumstances, following the decision of the Kerala High Court, referred to above, we hold that there was no gift in the present case which will attract gift-tax. 8. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
-
1985 (4) TMI 106 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... ircumstances, we accept the contention of the assessee that expenses from 1st June, 1979 are admissible. Since both the lower authorities dealt with the admissibility of expenses on the main basis whether the same was admissible or not as business was set up or was commenced, accepting the contention of the assessee that expenses are admissible from 1st June, 1979, we direct the ITO to allow the same. However we confirm the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the sum of Rs. 770.24 being cost of Dunlop hose pipe which was considered by him as capital expenses, all the expenses therefore, from 1st June, 1979 would be allowed barring cost of hose pipe. 11. The assessee had also raised certain other grounds pertaining to charge of interest under s. 217 and charge of surcharge but we were not addressed on the same and the learned counsel for the assessee did not seem to be serious about the same. The same as such are dismissed. 12. In the result, assessee s appeal is partly allowed.
-
1985 (4) TMI 105 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B
... ...
... ... ..... T (A) did not consider the same. The appeal of the assessee has been heard by the Tribunal on 11th April, 1985 and it is settled that the action under s. 147 (b)/34 (1) (b) cannot be taken for a mistake committed by the ITO due to oversight or inadvertence in view of the decision in (1979) 119 ITR 996 (SC). When the appeal of the assessee is taken up for hearing, the decision according to the Supreme Court is that no action can be taken under s. 147 (b) of the Act for the mistake committed by the ITO. Under the above circumstances, even after considering the various dates on which the argument was advanced by the Departmental Representative, the order passed by the ITO under s. 147 (b) on 15th March, 1978. could not be maintained in view of the decision in Indian and Eastern News Paper Society vs. CIT. As the order of the ITO was illegally passed under s. 147 (b), the order of the ITO is set aside and the original order is maintained. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1985 (4) TMI 104 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B
Appeals, Co-extensive Jurisdiction Of Tribunal With IAC ... ... ... ... ..... does not have the power to review its order. Thus, the power to rectify its order under section 254(2) of the Act can be assumed only where the orders suffer from glaring and obvious mistakes of facts or law or both. Both the learned Members are agreed that the observation made, if any, was only tentative and that the learned counsel was not prevented from arguing his case in full. Apart from the fact that there is difference between the Members as to the fact whether full arguments were advanced by the assessee s learned counsel, not arguing the case fully under some misapprehension, assuming it is correct, does not, to my mind, constitute apparent mistake on the face of the record so as to justify the recalling of the order for the purpose of hearing him again. In the circumstances, I am inclined to agree with the learned Accountant Member that this is not a fit case for recalling the order. 7. The order will now go to the Bench for decision according to the majority view.
-
1985 (4) TMI 103 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B
Assessment Year, Guest House, Power To Rectify Mistakes, Retrospective Effect ... ... ... ... ..... the facts of this case. The provision, as held by the Delhi High Court, is applicable to the assessment year 1979-80 irrespective of the period the previous year was covering. 7. The fact that the insertion of sub-section (5) in section 37, with effect from 1-4-1979 was not considered by the Tribunal in its appellate order is glaring and obvious. Once that mistake is apparent, the Tribunal is bound to rectify the mistake. It is not as if debatable issue is not considered originally never be considered through miscellaneous application. In any event, so far as this provision is concerned, having regard to the decisions of the Supreme Court, it is not even debatable. Section 37(5) is applicable to the year under appeal and, if so, it has got to be held that the guest-house expenses amounting to Rs. 10,798 have to be disallowed. In this view of the matter, I agree with the learned Judicial Member. 8. The order will now go to the Bench for decision according to the majority view.
-
1985 (4) TMI 102 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B
Assessment Order, Assessment Year, Capital Gains, Company In Liquidation, Reference To IAC, Time Limit For Completion
............
|
