Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 278 Records
-
1987 (4) TMI 118 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ... ... ... ..... ence. The basic finding of the CIT(A) is that there is no evidence at all here to hold that any liability has ceased to exist. We agree with the CIT(A) that a mere consolidation of various account is not equivalent to the writing off of the liabilities that consequent to credits being raised in the Profit and Loss A/c, s. 41(1) is totally inapplicable on the facts on record. We also agree with the facts in the Indian Motors Transport Co. being distinguishable, the ratio of that decision does not help the Revenue. This objection for the Revenue is, therefore, rejected. 25. The next objection of the Revenue is to the reduction of the addition of Rs. 2,05,470 made by the IAC (Asst.) on account of the scrap sold outside the books to Rs. 1,39,000. We have already held in paragraph 24 that no addition was called for at all on this count. We would, therefore, reject this objection for the Revenue. 26. In the result, ITA No. 5089/84 is allowed in part and ITA No. 336/85 is dismissed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 117 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ... ... ... ..... ome apparent confusion, we are of the view that this ruling cannot be the basis for accepting the contention of the assessee. As already observed, there is no other judicial opinion on the point. We are of the view that the terms of s. 43B are quite clear and do not permit any tinkering with the value of the closing stock which has been valued by the assessee itself according to its own past practice and also according to the established commercial principles. In our view, therefore, the ld. ITO was patently in error in allowing in addition to the full amount of excise and customs duties already debited in the Profit and Loss Account, the sums pertaining to those duties that were included in the value of the goods in the closing stock. The order passed by the ITO was, therefore, patently erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue and the ld. CIT(A) rightly interfered with the same. We, therefore, do not find any force in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 116 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ... ... ... ..... mption available under s. 5(1)(iv) has already been granted to the partners, it would in our opinion, be going against the specific provision of the law to direct that exemption higher than the maximum limit be granted to the assessee through the instrumentality of the firm. Therefore, in a case where maximum benefit has already been availed of by a partner under s. 5(1)(iv) it would not be correct to grant further relief to him in violation of the statute, purportedly in terms of rule 2 as no rule can be interpreted to override the specific provision of the statute to give effect to which the said rule is made. In this view of the matter, we are unable to interfere with the orders of the learned AAC in the present case . Therefore, holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under s. 5(1)(iv) even in relation to the property of the firm, in which he was a partner, subject to the maximum prescribed limit of Rs. 1 lac, we allow the assessee s contention and the appeal.
-
1987 (4) TMI 115 - ITAT DELHI-C
Deduction On Actual Payment, Revision, Orders Prejudicial To Revenue ... ... ... ... ..... nfusion, we are of the view that this ruling cannot be the basis for accepting the contention of the assessee. As already observed, there is not other judicial opinion on the point. We are of the view that the terms of section 43B are quite clear and do not permit any tinkering with the value of the closing stock which has been valued by the assessee itself according to its own past practice and also according to the established commercial principles. In our view, therefore, the learned ITO was patently in error in allowing in addition to the full amount of excise and customs duties already debited in the Profit and Loss Account, the sums pertaining to those duties that were included in the value of the goods in the closing stock. The order passed by the ITO was, therefore, patently erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue and the learned CIT (A) rightly interfered with the same. We, therefore, do not find any force in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 114 - ITAT DELHI-C
Assessment Proceedings, Income Tax Act, Reassessment Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... F about the gift made by the individuals out of the HUF funds in view of the position of law stated by us above. However, though the initiation of the reassessment can be said to be valid no amount of gift purported to have been made by the Karta and his wife could be included in the gift-tax assessment of the HUF because those gifts were ab initio void. The amounts which the Karta and his wife claimed to have received by virtue of the purported partition on 9-1-1982 never belonged to them because they continued to belong to the HUF and formed part of the assets of the HUF in the eyes of law. Therefore, even on the basis of this reasoning the amounts of Rs. 1,50,000 and Rs. 1,00,000 could not be clubbed in the reassessment proceedings in the hands of the HUF. In this view of the matter we cancel the reassessment proceedings and the result would be that the order made by the GTO u/s. 15(3) for the asstt. year 1982-83 on4-10-1982will stand. 12. In the result, appeal is allowed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 113 - ITAT DELHI-B
Penalty, Concealment Of Wealth ... ... ... ... ..... irst alternative would have to be taken for the purpose of considering the applicability of the Explanation. Therefore, the assessee could the return up to 1st April, 1979 and would be hit by the Explanation in question only if she did not do so up to that date, but the returns were actually file on 16-3-1979. Therefore, even upon the language of the statute, the assessee s case does not fall within the Explanation 3 at all. Consequently the penalties in question could not be levied upon the assessee. They are accordingly deleted. 7. Coming to the departmental appeals probably the grounds raised therein for recomputing the amount of penalties on the basis of wealth concealed and not the tax sought to be evaded has force, because in these years the penalties leviable were wealth based. However, in view of our aforesaid discussion, the appeals become infructuous. 8. In the result, appeal Nos. 1710 and 1711/Del/84 are allowed while appeal Nos. 1700 and 1701/Del/84 are dismissed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 112 - ITAT DELHI-B
Assessment Of Income, Assessment Year ... ... ... ... ..... he present case the amount of income in respect of which particulars have been concealed is a positive figure though the total income determined is a figure of loss as a result of carry forward of earlier years losses. In such a situation, the law presumes that the concealed income be treated as the total income and the tax would work out on that and it would be that tax which would be sought to be evaded for the purpose of quantification of penalty under section 271(1)(c). It does not appear to us to be reasonable to make a distinction between the case of Rowther Bros. as considered by the Kerala High Court and the case before us particularly in view of the specific Explanation now added in the statute. We, therefore, hold that penalty under section 271(1)(c) should be imposed in this case on the basis of concealed income as found by us. The Income-tax Officer is directed to work out the quantum of penalty on the above basis. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.
-
1987 (4) TMI 111 - ITAT DELHI-A
... ... ... ... ..... . 55,000. According to him the deposits were available with M/s Minakshi Sales Corporation, Jagadhari and M/s Ruchika Enterprises,Meerut. When asked, he stated that he made the gifts to the assessee as he was more dear and near to him than any family member. He also denied the suggestion that the amounts gifted represented the assessee s own money. He also gave the details of the rented properties at Jagadhari. A perusal of his statement and the other material on the record also establish that in his case also the apparent had to be taken as the real in the absence of any material to the contrary. 7. In the result we are of the view that for the asst. yr. 1974-75 the assessee s appeal should be allowed in part, i.e. to the extent of gifts made by Shri Vidyasagar Jain and Chaman Prakash. However so far as the asst. yr. 1976-77 is concerned, the gifts remained unexplained. 8. In the result ITA No. 5696/Del/86 is partly allowed whereas ITA No. 5697/Del/86 fails and is dismissed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 110 - ITAT DELHI-A
... ... ... ... ..... lty after recording the following (a) No penalty proceedings have been initiated in the case of the firm for the asst. yr. 1979-80 under s. 271(1)(b). (b) The only explanation given by the assessee is that the books of the firm were seized on24th March, 1979and hence it was not possible to furnish a statement of advance-tax for this year. But the due date for furnishing the statement of advance-tax fell in the year 1978, which was certainly before the date on which the books of the firm were seized. (c) In view of the above position, there was no reasonable cause shown for the default and the penalty was rightly levied. 12. After hearing the parties before us, we see no room for interference. The accounting year of the firm ended on31st July, 1978for the asst. yr. 1979-80. There was no dispute on this. Hence, the reasons advanced by the assessee before the authorities below were rightly rejected. We decline to interfere. 13. In the result, all the three appeals are dismissed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 109 - ITAT DELHI-A
Exemption, Income Of Educational Institution ... ... ... ... ..... ome and expenditure account. We have already noticed that for the A.Y. 1977-78 the assessee had no necessity of agitating the refusal of exemption under section 10(22) in appeal as it had been granted alternative relief under section 11. Thus having regard to the cumulative effect of all the relevant facts and circumstances and the position discussed above, we are clearly of the view that the assessee foundation duly established the requirements and qualified for the grant of exemption under section 10(22). We accordingly uphold the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Since the claim of the assessee for exemption under section 10(22) had been allowed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which view we are upholding, no exception can be taken by the department to the fact that the alternative claim of exemption under section 11 had not been examined by the learned CIT (A). 7. The appeals filed by the department accordingly fail and are dismissed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 108 - ITAT COCHIN
Exemption, Gift For Education Of Childern ... ... ... ... ..... f the marriage of each such relative (ix) of policies of insurance of annuities to any person (other than his wife) who is dependent upon him for support and maintenance, subject to a maximum of rupees ten thousand in value in the aggregate in one or more previous years of the benefits in respect of each such donee. So the dependence of the donee upon the donor is also irrelevant. As such the adequacy or sufficiency of the financial resources of the donee cannot be taken as a negative factor for considering the claim for exemption under section 5(1)(xii) of the Act. Looking to the background of the family, consisting mainly of Doctors, the financial standing of the donor and the educational needs of the donee, we consider that the gift of Rs. 1,25,000 is reasonable and the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(xii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958. The Gift-tax Officer is directed to allow the exemption claimed by the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 107 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ... ... ... ..... d to the High Court for its opinion, it would not be answered by the High Court in accordance with this decision. We, therefore, do not feel it necessary to make a reference over this matter. 4. So far as the other question relating to taxability of capital gains from sale of agricultural lands irrespective of the location of the land is concerned, no doubt this is highly debatable and controversial issue on which a reference is certainly called for but since a reference over the first question has been held by us to be unnecessary, the second question will arise only if the answer to the first question is given by the High Court in favour of the Revenue. If the first question does not subsist and the sale deeds executed by the assessee are held to be bogus, the question of taxability of any capital gains would not arise. Therefore, the second question is purely academic in view of our refusal to refer the first question. 5. In the result, reference application is dismissed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 106 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ... ... ... ..... al ground that the assessee had put in an application for continuation of registration after an assessment had already been made under s. 143(1), registration was sought to be denied to the assessee but then the AAC and the Tribunal had chosen to condone the delay in filing of the application which was a matter within their discretion. This was alone in relation to the grant of registration which ordinarily should not be denied to the assessee because there is no allegation that a genuine firm had not come into existence. In this background, the questions which relate to purely technical issues should not be referred because there are corresponding decisions in favour of the assessee which lay down that if the share income of the partners of a firm had been taken in their individual assessments, registration cannot be denied to the firm. Consequently, we are of the opinion that no reference in the matter is necessary. 4. In the result, the reference application is dismissed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 105 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ... ... ... ..... plicable in the cases of deemed gifts as in the case before us. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The issue already stands settled in favour of the assessee by an earlier order of the Bench in the case of Mohan Devi Oswal Public Charitable Trust with which we are in respectful agreement. Sec. 2(xii) of the GT Act makes no difference between outright gifts and deemed gifts. In fact the gift has been defined to include the deemed gifts. That being so, we do not find any merit in the submissions made on behalf of the Revenue. In view of these discussions we are not able to sustain the order of the AAC on this account. The order of the lower authorities have, therefore, to be annulled. We order accordingly. 8. Since we have annulled the orders passed by the lower authorities, we do not consider it necessary to go into the valuation of the shares as fixed by the AAC. 9. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed and that by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 104 - ITAT CALCUTTA
... ... ... ... ..... he matter of discharging its statutory liability the assessee was not a defaulter. In such a situation, in our opinion, s. 43(a) is not called into play with the result that we are firmly of the view that in the instant case, the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of the sales-tax liability amounting to Rs. 2,09,070. To this extent, therefore, the assessment order cannot be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 10. In view of what has been said above, we hold that the CIT in this case was in error in invoking his jurisdiction under s. 263 in so far as the sales-tax liability amounting to Rs. 2,09,070 is concerned. To this extent his order is clearly un sustainable. We accordingly modify the order of the CIT so that while recomputing the total income of the assessee firm for the asst. yr. 1984-85, the ITO shall add back only the amount of Rs. 15,263.82. 11. In the result, the appeal stands allowed in part to the extent indicated above.
-
1987 (4) TMI 103 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
Advance Payment, Bonus Shares, Equity Shares, Law Applicable, Trust For The Benefit ... ... ... ... ..... ount representing the provision for taxation was in excess and was consequently not to be treated as a liability while valuing the shares of Gharda Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. under rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. It is necessary here to point out that in spite of a specific query by the Bench, the assessee s learned counsel, Shri Doshi, has not been able to show to us that before the Wealth-tax Officer in the course of the assessment proceedings the assesses either made a claim or furnished material in support of the claim of the valuation of these shares under the yield capitalisation method. The alternative contention of the valuation of these shares under the yield capitalisation method cannot, therefore, in these circumstances, be entertained at this stage in view of the ruling of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd. 17. The appeals filed by the revenue succeed and are hereby allowed, while the assessee s appeals fail and are hereby dismissed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 102 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
... ... ... ... ..... nce of productivity incentive bonus. The ITO considered this as bonus falling under the Bonus Act and disallowed the same. In appeal, the CIT(A) noticed that the bonus was paid in terms of agreement between the assessee and employees union. Actually, as seen from the ITO s order the assessee has given 16 per cent bonus though in terms of Bonus Act it could have restricted the same to 8.33 per cent. Now even the CBDT instructions direct the allowance of bonus if the overall payment does not exceed the ceiling of 20 per cent. Besides, at the time of hearing, we were informed that the productivity bonus is really in the nature of wages earned by the employees for bringing more than the normal output. These payments are made on a prescribed scale on the above additional output. Taking all these facts into consideration, we hold after hearing the parties that the CIT(A) is right in his conclusion. This ground of appeal, therefore, fails. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 101 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
Accounting Year, Assessment Year, Excise Duty, High Court, Trading Liability ... ... ... ... ..... everything in its power to ensure that whatever was due to it according to its stand in this matter, should be done. The main issue that is raised by Shri Nair, and quite rightly, is that there is an uncertainty about the liability of the assessee regarding this excise duty and the liability in this regard has not finally ceased. Even now, in view of the decisions of the Tribunal (both the Customs Tribunal and the Income-tax Tribunal) for the preceding year, the assessee may have to pay the duty at the enhanced rate. Therefore, the order of the CIT (Appeals) in this regard does not appear to be justified. 8. The reference to section 43B is again misplaced because this section was inserted by the Finance Act, 1983 with effect from 1-4-1984 and we are concerned with the assessment year 1983-84. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we would accept the arguments advanced on behalf of the assessee and reverse the order of the CIT (Appeals). 9. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 100 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
Assessment Year, Industrial Company, Mistake Apparent From Record, Previous Year, Set Off, Supreme Court
-
1987 (4) TMI 99 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
Appeal To AAC, Assessment Order, Association Of Persons, Beneficiaries Unknown, Discretionary Trust, Rate Purpose
............
|