|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 273 Records
-
1985 (7) TMI 179 - ITAT MADRAS-A
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... t year under appeal and at the time of the assessment, which has been made on 8-3-1972, the circular had already been withdrawn. Therefore, this case does not fall within the ratio of the abovesaid Kerala High Court s decision. The question, therefore, arises is whether the circular dated 1-8-1969 should be followed in this case. I am of the view that a circular which was not in operation during the accounting year or even the assessment year but which was, though in operation for about two years, was withdrawn before the assessment was completed cannot be said to be binding on the income-tax authorities. In this view of the matter, I hold that even the circular dated 1-8-1969 does not help the case of the assessee. Accordingly, I agree with the learned Judicial Member that the surplus liable to capital gains tax in this case would be Rs. 2,28,902. . In the result, the Third Member order will now go to the Division Bench for deciding the appeal according to the majority view.
-
1985 (7) TMI 176 - ITAT MADRAS-A
... ...
... ... ..... f the Tribunal in ITA No. 69 (mad)/1979 dated 9th Jan, 1980 to support his case. In that case since the Tribunal came to the conclusion on facts that Dust Extracting unit are only accessories and part of the carding machines, it was held that the expenditure incurred for purchasing the Dust Extraction Unit is revenue in nature. In any case, Diesel Generator is not a part of the machineries used by the assesses in its business. Therefore, that decision of the Tribunal will not render any help to the assessee. Hence, the expenditure incurred in the present case should be treated as properly attributable to capital when it is made not only once and for all, but with view to bring into existence an asset or an advantage for the enduring benefit of a trade. Accordingly, we hold that the expenditure incurred for purchasing the Generator is capital in nature. Thus, the order passed by the authorities below on this point is confirmed and the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
-
1985 (7) TMI 175 - ITAT MADRAS-A
... ...
... ... ..... he value on the date of gift, which in this case would be the very date of commencement, namely 1st Nov., 1971 and it is not, in our view, possible or reasonable to relate back the profit of the accounting year which ended subsequently for the purpose of evaluating the amount of gift. Further, the proper and reasonable method of evaluating the right to future profits which includes the share of goodwill and other elements is to consider the performance of the business of the firm over a period of years, like there to five years atleast, and it is unrealistic to estimate the value with reference to only the very first year rsquo s profit. Therefore, even if it is held that the right to future profits has been transferred by the assessee in favour of the minors the value thereof can, in the circumstances of the case, only reasonably be nil and nothing more. For all these reasons. we reject the objection of the Department and uphold the order of the AAC. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1985 (7) TMI 171 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... mkhana (1983) 4 ITD 462 (Bom) considered this very issue and also considered all other High Court decisions. The observation of the ld. Member was that at the time when the ITO started reassessment, he verywell had the jurisdiction. If the initial jurisdiction to proceed is validly assumed any lapse, irregularly or omission in following prescribed procedure even though mandatory will not make the order a nullity void ab initio. They, therefore, held that the assessment order can only be set aside with the direction to be re-done by following mandatory provisions. Such the issue involved in the instant case being identical with that of the case before, Special Bench, we respectfully following the Special Bench, uphold the order of the CIT(A) in setting aside the order of the ITO to be redone in the manner prescribed by the statute by applying the mandatory provisions. 19. In the result, the Departmental appeal stands dismissed and the assessee rsquo s appeal is also dismissed.
-
1985 (7) TMI 170 - ITAT JAIPUR
Firm Registration ... ... ... ... ..... e present issue. Similarly, in Young India Mining and Transport Co. v. CIT 1984 149 ITR 226 (Delhi), a partnership firm had been constituted between A and B who were employees of D and D s minor children were admitted to the benefits of partnership. The Tribunal had found that neither A nor B were engaged in the business of the firm and did not act as partners of the firm in reality. They were employees of D who was earlier running the business as a proprietary concern. Nothing of this kind is there in the present case in which registration has been refused only because the ladies could not properly explain their source of capital. In these circumstances, the utmost that the ITO could have done was to add the unexplained investment in the income of these ladies. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the assessee was rightly entitled to registration as held by the Commissioner (Appeals). We accordingly dismiss these appeals. 5. In the result, the appeals are hereby dismissed.
-
1985 (7) TMI 169 - ITAT JAIPUR
Business Loss Or Deduction, Year In Which Allowable ... ... ... ... ..... ncome-tax Act, 1961, according to which (1) Where an allowance or deduction has been made in the assessment for any year in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability incurred by the assessee, and subsequently during any previous year the assessee has obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of such loss or expenditure or some benefit in respect of such trading liability by way of remission or cessation thereof, the amount obtained by him or the value of benefit accruing to him shall be deemed to be profits and gains of business or profession and accordingly chargeable to income-tax as the income of that previous year, whether the business or profession in respect of which the allowance or deduction has been made is in existence in that year or not. With these remarks, we accept the appeal and delete the disallowance. The stay application consequently becomes infructuous and is dismissed. 5. In the result the appeal is allowed.
-
1985 (7) TMI 168 - ITAT INDORE
Assessment Order, Assessment Year, Interest On Delayed Refund, Interest On Refund, Original Assessment, Set Off
-
1985 (7) TMI 167 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
Reassessment, Information ... ... ... ... ..... n determining the value of the perquisite in the assessee s hands. If this Tribunal considered that any lesser fraction is attributable to such user for official purposes then direction may be given to the ITO to work out the amount of exclusion from out of the perquisites included in the hands of the assessee with reference to such lower fraction as may be determined by this Tribunal. The same contention raised by the assessee in his appeal for the assessment year 1974-75 was dismissed by this Tribunal Bench A by its order dated 18-9-1979 in IT Appeal No. 1396 (Hyd.) of 1977-78 and also following its own earlier finding for the assessment year 1973-74 as per its order dated 28-9-1978 passed by this Tribunal Bench A in IT Appeal No. 399 (Hyd.) of 1977-78. In the face of those orders the second limb in the second ground cannot be considered and following the abovesaid orders, we dismiss the whole of the second ground. 17. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
-
1985 (7) TMI 166 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Business Deduction or Loss ... ... ... ... ..... ng an expenditure and the purpose of the expenditure. The motive with which the assessee may have incurred an expenditure would be irrelevant and what was relevant is only the purpose. We may mention that this distinction has been approved by the Supreme Court in the case of Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT 1979 118 ITR 200. Now, the motive of the company in becoming a partner is certainly to take over a running business of the firm. But that motive is not very relevant. The purpose of becoming a partner is the immediate objective as against the remote objective is to become a partner and earn the profit or loss in conducting the business for the year. For the accounting year concerned, the assessee s share was a loss. This loss has to be clearly allowable since it is a loss incurred by the assessee as a partner in a firm doing business. We will, therefore, uphold the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on this point. 11. In the result, the appeal will be treated as partly allowed.
-
1985 (7) TMI 165 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Business Expenditure, Allowability of, Assessee, Salaries, Entertainment Expenditure, Chargeability Of
-
1985 (7) TMI 164 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Rates Of Tax, Specified HUF ... ... ... ... ..... ... In the first place, the income although derived by his minor children is held to be his income and an obligation is imposed on the assessee under, section 139(1) of the Act to declare such income in the return filed by him... It will be apparent from the above that there is no manner of difficulty at all in holding that the total income for the purpose of the Finance Act also includes income under section 64. Now, Shri Anandkumar had referred to the Finance Minister s speech. No doubt, Finance Minister s speech can be referred to where there is some ambiguity in interpreting a particular provision of the section. Where there is no such ambiguity and where the term to be construed as defined by the Act itself, there is no need for going into the Finance Minister s speech. Further, since there is no difficulty in interpretation, there is no question of arriving at an interpretation which leaves the assessee with lesser burden. 8. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.
-
1985 (7) TMI 163 - ITAT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... case, the contention of the Revenue is that the assessee was served through his agent and, therefore, the order 5, r. 12, C.P.C. would apply. 12. In the cross objections filed by the assessee the only objection raised by the assessee is that the AAC should have allowed relief on all other grounds as argued before him. However, at the time of hearing of the appeals and the cross objections, we were not addressed on this ground. No material was placed before us to enable us to ascertain as to what other grounds were raised and argued before the AAC on behalf of the assessee. Moreover, the finding that notices under s. 17 were not served on the assessee led to the cancellation of reassessment and penalty orders and, therefore, even if some other grounds were raised and argued before the AAC, he was not required to record his finding on those grounds. 13. For the foregoing reasons, all the Departmental appeals as well as the cross objections filed by the assessee stand dismissed.
-
1985 (7) TMI 162 - ITAT DELHI-E
... ...
... ... ..... cent for the asst. yr. 1971-72, the production of first grade yarn was 63.8 per cent and on the same basis, an addition of Rs. 26.90 lakhs had been made. However, the Tribunal vide Paras 37 to 49 of its order for the asst. yr. 1971-72 deleted that addition. Since the CIT (A) has deleted the addition for the assessment in question by following the Tribunal rsquo s aforesaid order, there is no force in this ground. 34. The only other ground in the Department rsquo s appeal relates to the direction of the CIT (A) for computing the disallowance under s. 40A (5). We have already upheld the order of the CIT (A) while discussing ground No. 19 in the assessee rsquo s appeal. There is, therefore no force in this ground either. 35. To sum up, therefore, we find no force in any of the grounds of appeal raised on behalf of the Department. 36. In the result, whereas I. T. A. No. 1772 filed by the assessee is partly allowed, I. T. A. No. 1921 filed by the Department fails and is dismissed.
-
1985 (7) TMI 161 - ITAT DELHI-E
Capital For Purposes, Chargeable Profits, Contingency Reserve, Development Rebate Reserve, Exchange Fluctuation, Foreign Exchange, Income Tax Act, Total Income
-
1985 (7) TMI 160 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... t be allowed this year. It is an undenied fact that the assessments to sales-tax for these years were made and the relevant demand notice were served on the assessee during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal. Such being the case the liability to pay these amounts accrued to the assessee in the accounting year and under the mercantile system of accounting that the assessee had been following, any amount provided for the discharge of a liability that legally accrued during the accounting year should be allowed as a deduction. These amounts did not only not accrued in the relevant accounting year but they were also paid. There should, therefore, be no difficulty in holding that these payments though relate dot the previous years came up on the assessee as a liability in the year under appeal and, therefore, should be allowed as a deduction. The CIT (A) is justified in the order that he has made. We uphold it. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1985 (7) TMI 159 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ...
... ... ..... it is on the facts of this case that issue became, if we may say so, a non-issue in the sense that what is to be seen is whether the ITO has made proper enquiry and whether he has come to the proper conclusion or not. That apart the minutes recorded by the Commissioner and such settlements reached between the heads of department like the Commissioners and the assessees, to which the concerned ITOs are made parties from whom reports are called for and which are made the basis of settlements, if doubted and thrown aside like this, the faith of the people in the administration will be severely shaken and will jeopardise the process and course of justice. That there was a thorough enquiry made by the ITO is proved by the fact that it was recorded in the minutes. The proof that there was no mistake in such a consideration is established by the fact that the present Commissioner is not able to show any omissions of any such consideration. 6. In the results, the appeals are allowed.
-
1985 (7) TMI 158 - ITAT DELHI-C
Articles Or Things, Industrial Undertaking, Investment Allowance, Plant And Machinery ... ... ... ... ..... alary, but the Commissioner (Appeals) held that only section. 40(c) was applicable, so that only the overall limit of Rs. 72,000 should be applied and not the separate limits for salary and perquisites laid down in section 40A(5). Consequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the disallowance. On appeal, it was held by the Tribunal As decided in the cases of CIT v. Bharat Vijay Mills Ltd. 1981 128 ITR 633 (Guj.) and ITO v. Sapt Textiles Products India Ltd. 1982 1 SOT 269 (Bom.) (SB), only the ceiling of Rs. 72,000 under section 40(c) and first proviso to section 40A(5) was applicable to a director, whether he was an employee of the company or not. The Commissioner (Appeals) was, therefore, justified. Following this view with respect, we hold that the Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in his view and we direct that the amount of Rs. 3,782 should be deleted. 8. This para is not reproduced here as it involves minor issue. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.
-
1985 (7) TMI 157 - ITAT DELHI-B
Valuation, Immovable Property, Exemption, House Belonging To Assessee ... ... ... ... ..... d on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmed Khan v. Municipal Board of Sitapur AIR 1965 SC 1923, wherein their Lordships defined the meaning of the term belonging to as follows Though the word belonging to no doubt is capable of denoting an absolute title, it is nevertheless not confined to connoting that sense. Even possession of an interest less than that of full ownership could be signified by that word . In the present case the assessee is in possession of the flat in question and the legal owner, i.e., the builder is not in a position to dislodge him due to the operation of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1908. It can, therefore, be said in his case that the flat belongs to the assessee, and, this being so, the assessee would be eligible for exemption under section 5(1)(iv). Accordingly, we upheld the decision of the AAC on this account. 9. In the result, we confirm the order of the AAC and dismiss both the appeals.
-
1985 (7) TMI 156 - ITAT DELHI-B
Advance Tax, Assessment Year ... ... ... ... ..... sessee in the case of the other four partners of the assessee-firm and cancelled the penalties. No different conclusion can be arrived at on the same set of facts in the case of the assessee. That finding, in my view, is sufficient to vindicate the assessee s stand. I also agree with the learned Accountant Member s observation that on the same set of facts the Tribunal should be loathe to come to a different conclusion. These reasons weighed with me to agree With the view expressed by the learned Accountant Member in preference to the view expressed by the learned Judicial Member. The case relied upon by the learned Accountant Member in Ramnagar Cane and Sugar Co. Ltd. s case does support the view that is being taken by me, that was taken by the learned Accountant Member and that was also taken by the Tribunal in the cases of the other four partners. Now the matter will go before the regular Bench, which heard the appeal originally for disposal according to the majority view.
-
1985 (7) TMI 155 - ITAT DELHI-A
... ...
... ... ..... 850 (AP) 4. Jaggannath Singh vs. CWT (1980) 122 ITR 114 (Pat) 5. Hanutram Ram Prasad, Dibrugah (1978) 112 ITR 187 (Gau) 6. Smt. Kamlavati vs. CIT Central (1978) 111 ITR 248 (Pb) 7. Nemi Chand Ganeshmal vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 438 (MP) May be that the aforesaid authorities have taken a view contrary to that of Hon rsquo ble Rajasthan High Court but while deciding the case of person hailing from the territorial jurisdiction of Rajasthan, the ld. CIT (A) had no option in the matter but to follow the ratio of the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Rajasthan High Court even if there are decisions of other High Court taking a contrary stand. This constitutional obligation was lost sight of the CIT (A). He did not accept the assessee rsquo s submission based on the above reasoning which was in our opinion, wrong. 5. For the reasons given above we are unable to uphold the order of the ld. CIT (A) accordingly we reverse it and cancel the penalty imposed and allow the appeal of the assessee.
............
|
