|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 194 Records
-
1988 (5) TMI 74 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
Investment Allowance, Agricultural Development Allowance, Hatchery Business ... ... ... ... ..... eding of commercial birds by engaging the services of doctors and technicians and laboratory tests. Certainly, these services were rendered to the poultry farmers with a view to getting good raw material viz., eggs from them for further use in the process of hatching into one day old chicks. In the light of the decision of the Calcutta High court in Ramnugger Cane and Sugar Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1981 128 ITR 716, the only restriction is that the expenditure should be incurred for goods, services or facilities to certain persons other than and distinct from the assessee itself which provided the goods or facilities. Therefore, the Income-tax Officer is directed to verify the quantum of the expenditure which would be eligible for deduction under s. 35C and allow the weighted deduction for which purpose the matter is restored to his file. 23. In the result, the appeals for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80 are dismissed and the appeal for the assessment year 1981-82 is allowed.
-
1988 (5) TMI 73 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
Business Expenditure, Allowability of, Liquor Business ... ... ... ... ..... ee right from the beginning before the assessing authority. Therefore, there is no bar for the Tribunal in accepting this confirmatory letter as it is not a new evidence. In fact, the production of such a letter would dispel any lurking doubt and is indispensable in judging the facts of the case. On the facts of the case also, a part from the confirmatory letter, we are satisfied that the assessee s stand is well founded, because whatever be the description or mis-description of the amount on account of the bottles on the part of the supplier, the assessee had taken these amounts ultimately to the trading account forming part of the purchase cost of the supplies which is pitted against the sale of liquor which is made along with the bottle. Therefore, we feel that there is no substance in the case of the revenue to make any disallowance or addition on this ground. All the additions are thus deleted. 6. to 18. (These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.)
-
1988 (5) TMI 72 - ITAT DELHI-E
Agricultural Land, Assessment Year, Let Out ... ... ... ... ..... ission for using the land for a different purpose has not been obtained is not sufficient to hold that a certain land is agricultural land. The actual user either at the relevant time or shortly before is more material. In the case before us as noted above, the land is not being used for agriculture. In fact there is no land now. The assessee s property on the relevant valuation dates was not land but was godowns built on land which was in the past agricultural land. Therefore, the very nature and use of the property had changed and we are amazed at the learned AAC s observation that the character of the land had not changed even with the construction of a godown. In view of what we have said above, the property would not be termed as agricultural land within the meaning of section 5(1)(iva) of the Act and the WTO was right in bringing it to tax. We, therefore, set aside the orders passed by the AAC on this issue and restore the order of the WTO. 13. The appeals stand allowed
-
1988 (5) TMI 71 - ITAT DELHI-D
Application For Extension, Assessment Year, Religious Trust ... ... ... ... ..... y follows that notice under sub-section (2) of section 17 read with Rule 17 to be given to the Income-tax Officer in Form No. 10 can also be delivered to him before the expiry of the time extended under sub-section (1) or (2) of section 139 for furnishing the return of income. The duty is cast on the Income-tax Officer to intimate to the assessee whether the request for extension of time for furnishing the return had been granted or refused. If there is no reply within a reasonable time from the Income-tax Officer, the assessee could presume that his request for extension of time had been granted. In view of what is stated above, it is abundantly clear that neither on facts nor on law the Revenue has any case for an interference in the order of the learned CIT (Appeals). The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 10. At the time of hearing the learned counsel for the assessee did not press the cross-objection for determination on merits. It is, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn.
-
1988 (5) TMI 70 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... ohta was an unknown factor, the ITO should have recorded a finding that there was no doubt about his identity much less denying the registration claimed, on frivolous grounds like personal non-appearance of Shri S.K. Mohta when the basis of assessment has been primarily the activities relating to the partners as doubts were projected that Smt. Veena Devi could not be said to be a genuine partner. 10. We have been given copy of account of Smt. Veena Devi in M/s Supreme Plastic Industries showing transfer of moneys to M/s M.M. Enterprises. The extent of her investment we have already noted above. 11. In view of the above facts and after closely perusing the documents before us and also keeping in focus the relevant circumstances, we find absolutely no justification for the orders of the lower authorities refusing registration to the assessee, claimed under s. 185(1). Directing that the assessee be accorded the status as a registered firm under s. 185(1)(a), we allow the appeal.
-
1988 (5) TMI 69 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... t. yrs. 1973-74 to 1978-79, exemption could not be denied to it for the asst. yrs. 1979-80 and 1980-81 on the ground that it had not obtained registration as required under s. 12A. In view of the above decisions as applicable to the facts of the present case, we are of the view that the assessee having been held to be entitled to exemption under s. 11 for the previous asst. yrs. 1976-77, 1978-79 and 1980-81, it was entitled to claim exemption under s. 11 in view of the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal referred to above since the application for registration under s. 12A was pending and had not been rejected. It is also relevant to mention that even for the subsequent asst. yr. 1984-85, the learned CIT(A) had himself accepted the existence of charitable purpose under s. 2(15) and had held that s. 28(iii) could not be invoked in the assessee s case. Having regard to the above finding the appeal filed by the assessee has to be allowed. 6. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
-
1988 (5) TMI 68 - ITAT DELHI-A
... ...
... ... ..... would not become a non-genuine firm. In other words, registration can be refused to a firm only when the object of the partnership was opposed to the public policy, which renders the object unlawful. When such was not the position registration cannot be refused. We may add that under r. 7, all the individuals comprising the partnership must be specified in the licence. In this case two persons were shown as partners in respect of one shop, and the other two persons were shown as licencees in respect of the other shop. In other words this partnership business was being carried on under two licences which comprised all the four persons, by coming together to carry on the business of these two shops in partnership by pooling resources and to share the profits or losses. 7. For these reasons we are of the opinion that the registration had been erroneously cancelled by the Revenue and we direct that the firm should be granted registration. 8. In the result, this appeal is allowed.
-
1988 (5) TMI 67 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... nd depreciation on cars. To our mind, personal use of the cars is not ruled out but on a perusal of the order of the assessing authority it shows that there was probably more than one car maintained by the assessee because total amount of expenses is Rs. 34,656, which could not relate to one vehicle alone. Considering the fact that the assessee had more than one vehicle, it appears that the business requirements of the assessee must be quite large. We, therefore, restrict the disallowance to 1/8th of the total expenses. 8. In the result the departmental appeal stands dismissed while the assessee s appeal and cross objection stand partly allowed. RAM RATAN, A.M. I have my own reservations about the correctness of the conclusions regarding retrospective application of r. 6AA of the IT Rules, 1962 w.e.f. 1st April, 1981 when the said rule came into being w.e.f 1st Aug., 1984. I however concur with the order of the learned judicial Member with a view not to join issues with him.
-
1988 (5) TMI 66 - ITAT CALCUTTA-E
Income From Other Sources, Set Off ... ... ... ... ..... profits arising under section 74A(2)(c). The profit arising from the sale of horses during the year under consideration definitely comes under section 74A(2)(c) as it cannot come under any of the other sub-sections. Thus, the losses suffered under sub-section (2)(c) and determined in the earlier years have to be set off against such profits earned during the current year which also come under the same sub-section (2)(c). Hence, we agree with the conclusion of the CIT(A), though for a different reason. Hence, it is not necessary to go into the other questions relating to the head Capital gains or Business . In short, we find that the losses determined in the earlier years come under section 74A(2)(c) and the profit of Rs. 99,328 earned during this year also comes under section 74A(2)(c) and so we uphold the direction of the CIT(A) to set off the losses of the earlier years against the profits of the current year from the same source. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1988 (5) TMI 65 - ITAT CALCUTTA-D
... ...
... ... ..... at a date later than the close of the previous year is available only in respect of the asst. yrs. prior to 1975-76. Sec. 155(13) of the IT Act for amendment of the assessment order relates to the asst. yrs. 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76. It has no application to the asst. yrs. 1976-77 and onwards. It is though mentioned in r.1(c) of the rules of the trust that the fund shall be deemed to have come into operation as on and from the first day of Oct., 1974 but such mention cannot enure to the benefit of the instant assessment year when the Commissioner has approved the gratuity fund w.e.f 14th Nov., 1975, obviously because the fund was created by the trust deed dt. 14th Nov., 1975 and there was no fund in existence earlier to that date. In this view of the matter, we find no error in the order of the CIT(A) rejecting the claim. The order is, therefore, upheld. 20. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. (Paras 11 to 19, not involving important grounds, have been omitted)
-
1988 (5) TMI 64 - ITAT CALCUTTA-D
... ...
... ... ..... ide of the balance-sheet. On perusal of the balance-sheet, it is found that the loans and advances given by the assessee-trust out of its funds are not utilised in the manner indicated in s. 11(5) of the Act. However, s. 13(1)(d) was submitted by the Finance Act, 1983 w.e.f. 1st April, 1983. Consequently, it was indicated that investment must be converted as required by s. 11(5) on or before 30th Nov., 1983. The assessee s previous year ended on 31st March, 1983. Therefore, unless the last date is expired, it cannot be said that the assessee has contravened the provisions of s. 11(5) r/w s. 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. The question of making any contravention during the year under assessment does not arise and, therefore, the assessee cannot be denied exemption under s. 11(5) of the Act. The ITO is, therefore, directed to allow necessary exemption to the assessee. If necessary, the assessee should be allowed an opportunity of being heard. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1988 (5) TMI 63 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B
Account Books, Assessment Year, Business Premises, In Part, Total Income, Unexplained Investments
-
1988 (5) TMI 62 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
... ...
... ... ..... on for charging interest under s. 215 of the Act. However no specific argument was advanced before us in support of the said ground. No facts were placed before us by the learned counsel for the assessee regarding this ground. Consequently, we reject the same. 19.In the memorandum of cross objection for the asst. yr. 1978-79, there is an additional ground regarding the sum of Rs. 8,000. The assessee had claimed before the ITO that the amount was capital in nature as it was received by way of compensation for covenanting not to exploit the available space of 100 ft. radius to the Selvel Board/hoarding. This contention not appear to have been pressed before the AAC. In the course of hearing before us, no argument was advanced. It is obvious that the compensation received was includible in the net income. The ITO was justified in doing so. This ground is, therefore, rejected. 20.The Departmental appeals are allowed while the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed.
-
1988 (5) TMI 61 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
Revision Of Other Orders ... ... ... ... ..... rger of the ITO s order with the appellate order of the Commissioner. The appellate order of the Commissioner is from the second order of the ITO dated 19-7-1981 and not from the original order of the ITO which was sought to be rectified. Regarding the observations of the Commissioner which have been quoted above, I am of the view that they do not in any way prevent the ITO from rectifying his earlier order. The above quotation clearly show that all that the Commissioner was doing was to confine the ITO within the limits of the direction which have been issued to him by the Commissioner under section 264. He was in no way commenting on the merits of the case. Finally regarding the existence of a mistake which can be rectified, in my view, the effect of the amendment is so clear that it is not capable of any doubt or dispute. Therefore, the ITO was well within his powers to rectify the original order which he has done. I agree with the Commissioner. 5. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1988 (5) TMI 60 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
Business Expenditure, Allowability of ... ... ... ... ..... has not been accepted by the assessee-company till today and, therefore, it is, in the first place, not a liability and even if it is a liability, it cannot be the liability of the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1980-81 even under the mercantile system of accounting. In respect of the second amount of Rs. 3,77,000, for which there was a mere provision in the account books and even a bill was not submitted by the Superintendent of Police to the assessee-company, the assessee-company s case for deduction of the amount in working out the business income is much weaker. We have, therefore, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the claim of deduction of Rs. 7,54,530 on account of so-called liability for deployment of police personnel under the mercantile system of accounting was not admissible in working out the business income and was rightly not allowed by the authorities below. 7. to 13. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues .
-
1988 (5) TMI 59 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Hindu Undivided Family ... ... ... ... ..... ld not affect this income from the firm. The direct income from the investment of the money was by way of interest and, there is no dispute before me regarding that amount. It has already been offered to be assessed in the hands of the HUF. I find that the share income has been credited in the account of Shri Kishore Chand and not in the account of Shri Kishore Chand and Sons in the books of the firm. The Income-tax Officer may not recognise the partial partition but the effect of that is that he would continue to assess the HUF. It would, however, not affect the question of the inclusion of income that the HUF was not at all earning in this period. I, therefore, agree with the learned Accountant Member that the provisions of section 171(9) do not have a bearing on the question not inclusion of the share income in the hands of the HUF in the three years . 11. Now the matter will go back before the regular Bench for passing an order in accordance with the view of the majority.
-
1988 (5) TMI 58 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... is adopted, the assessee was required to value 71,493 quintals of free sugar Rs. 207.86 per quintal. The cost determined by the Cost Auditor either at Rs. 212.60 per quintal or Rs.193.18 per quintal, which was amended subsequently, could not be taken into consideration because the assessee in past was always taking the cost into consideration as cost worked out on the basis of its books of account. 22. Therefore, after considering the arguments, paper book and case laws, the ITO is directed to value the closing stock as follows Levy Sugar 95,144 quintals Rs. 186.60 Free Sugar 71,493 quintals Rs. 207.86 The ITO, therefore, will determine the amount which can be substituted for the addition. As the addition has been sustained, the assessee s appeal is also decided with reference to the above fact. 23. The other points in the appeals, if any, shall be decided by the Division Bench. 24. In the result, the departmental appeal is partly allowed and assessee s appeal is dismissed.
-
1988 (5) TMI 57 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
... ...
... ... ..... The main difficulty in this case has arisen because of the rise in the price of land due to various factors. It has given an impression to the Revenue authorities that the nature of the land had changed. If the value of agricultural land shoots up due to the development of the city and it fetches a high value the nature of the land cannot be said to have been changed if some agricultural activity or cultivation has continued on that land. In the case of CIT vs. Smt. Lilawati Tkakorelal Patel the land in question had been sold to a co-operative housing society. Yet on the basis of the entries in Panipatraks and the other material to show the use of the land, it was held that the land was agricultural upto the date of sale. Having regard to these factors, I agree with the learned Accountant Member that the land was agricultural land and capital gain was not chargeable on its sale. Now the matter will go before the Bench for passing an order in accordance with the majority view.
-
1988 (5) TMI 56 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
Capital Assets, Agricultural Land ... ... ... ... ..... rtance. The main difficulty in this case has arisen because of the rise in the price of land due to various factors. It has given an impression to the revenue authorities that the nature of the land had changed. If the value of agricultural land shoots up due to the development of the city and it fetches a high value the nature of the land cannot be said to have been changed if some agricultural activity or cultivation has continued on that land. In the case of Smt. Lilavati Thakorelal Patel the land in question had been sold to a co-operative housing society. Yet on the basis of the entries in Panipatraks and the other material to whom the use of the land, it was held that the land was agricultural upto the date of sale. Having regard to these factors, I agree with the learned Accountant member that the land was agricultural land and capital gain was not chargeable on its sale. Now the matter will go before the Bench for passing an order in accordance with the majority view.
-
1988 (5) TMI 55 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... ment of conditions for allowance of deduction under s. 32-A save those which had already been decided by the CIT(A) by his order dt. 23rd Dec., 1982, the ITO had exceeded his jurisdiction and in appeal the learned CIT(A) wrongly approved his action. In view of the order of the CIT(A) dt. 23rd Dec., 1982 the ITO was duty bound to have allowed investment allowance in respect of furniture (Cinema Chairs) and accoustics, treating the same to be falling within the definition of the term Plant . Since neither the ITO nor the CIT(A) has pointed out any other fact indicating non-fulfilment of conditions for allowance of deduction under s. 32-A. save those which had already been decided by the CIT(A) by his order dt. 23rd Dec., 1982 in favour of the assessee, we feel inclined to accept the assessee s contention at this stage and allow investment allowance on the said two items at our stage accordingly. 10. In the result, the order under appeal is, set aside and the appeal is allowed.
....
|
