|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 197 Records
-
1990 (5) TMI 79 - ITAT INDORE
Original Assessment, Sales Tax ... ... ... ... ..... f the Explanation, the assessee would not be entitled to deduction of the outstanding liability to sales-tax. We may mention that we have not referred this matter to the Special Bench because the decision of the Tribunal is that of a Single Member whereas this appeal is being heard by Division Bench. 13. Shri Sodani then submitted that the amount which should actually be disallowed is not Rs. 17,440 but much less. We agree that the total collection during this year is of Rs. 16,261. The assessee had actually paid Rs. 7,409. So the amount out of this year s liability which is outstanding is only of Rs. 8,852. This is the amount which should be disallowed for the year 1984-85. Since this amount was actually paid in the accounting year relevant to the A.Y. 1985-86, the assessee would be entitled to the deduction of this amount for the A.Y. 1985-86 as a consequence of this order. The ITO will modify both the assessments accordingly. 14. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed
-
1990 (5) TMI 78 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
Revision, Refund Of Advance Tax, Powers Of Commissioner ... ... ... ... ..... est. The assessee had specifically pointed out in the reply dated 16-3-1989 to the show-cause notice to the Commissioner that if the interest admissible to the assessee under section 244(1A) is taken into account there was no question of any loss to the revenue. It is well settled that an order should not only be erroneous but also be prejudicial to the revenue before it can be interfered with under section 263 of the Act. In the present case, the question whether the order is in fact prejudicial to the revenue has escaped the attention of the Commissioner particularly with reference to the claim that the assessee was entitled to the interest granted even though under 4 different section of the Act. In these circumstances, we deem it fit to set aside the order of the Commissioner and remit the matter back to his file for reconsideration of the issue in the light of our above observations and in accordance with law. 9. The appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
-
1990 (5) TMI 77 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee, the learned IAC accepted the purchase as genuine but held that the transaction was a speculative transactions and the loss arising in the deal was a speculation loss and, hence, disallowed the same. The learned CIT(A) took the view that on the admitted position that the goods had been supplied to M/s Indo Solex Ltd. at the contracted price, though the supplies had been procured from Ajay Trading Co. at higher price with a view to honouring the contract with M/s Indo Solex Ltd. it cannot be held that the loss arising in the transaction was a speculation loss, the reason being the delivery had in fact been effected by the assessee to the purchaser. We do not find any infirmity in his order and the objection of the Revenue in relation to the deductibility of Rs. 1,47,250 is rejected. 20. In the result, the assessee s appeal for the asst. yr. 1981-82 allowed, for the asst. yr. 1982-83 is partly allowed and the Revenue s appeal for the asst. yr. 1981-82 is dismissed.
-
1990 (5) TMI 76 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... te that the learned ITO has not chosen to levy penalty under s. 201(1) r/w the proviso thereto for the delay, if any, in the payment of the tax deducted at source. Having regard to these facts, it could be held in the probability of this case that the credit entry for the interest in favour of the creditors was not made on 4th Nov., 1983 but was only made long after that, perhaps in November, 1985 as stated by the assessee. The liability to deduct tax and pay the same arises only at the time of credit but not on the date for which the credit is made. At the time of credit would mean the date on which the credit is made but not the date in respect of which the credit is made. In this view of the matter, we hold that no interest is leviable inasmuch as the amount of tax deductible on the interest credited has been paid within a few days from the time of making the credit entry. We, therefore, cancel the levy of interest under s. 201(1A). 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1990 (5) TMI 75 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Business Expenditure, Sales Tax ... ... ... ... ..... to 73 1,84,213.00 Sept. 30 By Sales-tax collection in the month of Sept. 82 debit note Nos. 74 to 85 1,64,637.00 Sept. 30 By Sales-tax difference chargeable on sale 28,26,404.75 Sept. 30 To Sales-tax payable on sales for the year ended 30-9-82 50,15,897.72 Balance C/f 30,33,588.41 ------------------------- ------------------------- 80,49,486.13 80,49,486.13 ------------------------- ------------------------- Annexure - B M/S. Central Wines Hyderabad Statement of Sales-tax payable A/c for 1981-82 Date Particulars Debit Credit 1981 Oct. 1 By Balance B/f 34,66,869.84 Oct. 24 To Sales-tax paid for Sept. 81 4,28,503.29 30-9-82 To Transfer from ales-tax Payment A/c 42,36,751.00 30-9-82 By S.T. payable on sales for the year ended 30-9-82 50,15,897.72 ------------------------- ------------------------ 46,65,254.29 84,82,767.56 Credit balance C/f 38,17,513.27 ------------------------- ------------------------ 84,82,767.56 84,82,767.56 ------------------------- ------------------------
-
1990 (5) TMI 74 - ITAT DELHI-E
Deduction In Respect, Excise Duty, Expenditure Incurred, High Court, Provision For Payment ... ... ... ... ..... are synonymous but unfortunately the former is a step prior to actual payment and therefore, could not be termed as payment. The Tribunal decisions relied upon by the assessee is of no assistance to the assessee for the reason that, in all those cases, the sales tax and other levies collected fell due for payment to the authorities on a date which date fell subsequent to the close of the accounting period and that the deposits in fact were made on such due dates and that, the assessee had only complied with the provisions of that Act. In the instant case, as observed earlier, the assessee merely gives in writing its promise to pay the duty at certain future date, and that too if the decision is against the assessee. Thus, the very nature of the claim though statutory, but in view of the conditions specified in sec. 43B that deduction will be permissible only when the duty, etc., are actually paid, the claim of the assessee is rejected. 7. In the result the appeal is dismissed
-
1990 (5) TMI 73 - ITAT DELHI-E
Accounting Year, Business Loss ... ... ... ... ..... assessing officer was wrong in rejecting the claim of this loss by observing that, the profit or loss on a chit could be derived only on the completion of the chit and not otherwise. There is no dispute to this principle but primarily in the instant case the system of accounting adopted by the assessee would not change the aspect of mutuality on these transactions, therefore, whatever method the assessee chooses, by the very nature of the transactions, the element of mutuality being existing, the character of the expense that it is not allowable cannot undergo any change. 4.11 We are therefore of the opinion that, bid amount on own chits of Rs. 5,68,500 and the commission amounts of Rs. 1,90,095 and Rs. 94,750 being to related to mutuality are therefore outside the ambit of the I.T. Act and hence, neither the expense claimed is allowable nor the income shown to this extent are taxable. The order of the CIT(A) is accordingly set aside. 4.12 In the result, the appeal is allowed
-
1990 (5) TMI 72 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... us, but the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee is simple. According to him if the total income is considered to be Rs. 988.69 lakhs, 75 per cent of which comes to Rs. 741.52 lakhs, then the estimate filed by the assessee on income of Rs. 781.82 lakhs is not an underestimate, much less, an estimate which may be said to be false or untrue to the knowledge of the assessee. Considering all facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the Revenue has not been able to discharge the onus of providing that the estimate filed by the assessee on15th Dec., 1975was false or untrue. We further hold that it was not a fit case for levy of penalty at all because even if there was some variation in the estimate, by the very nature of things an estimate is an approximation and cannot mean mathematical precision. We accordingly cancel the penalty partly sustained by the learned CIT(A). 22. In the result, while the assessee s appeal succeeds, the Revenue s appeal is dismissed.
-
1990 (5) TMI 71 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ...
... ... ..... se nor could it be said to be other than bona fide. This is not a case where the assessee can be said to have suppressed or concealed his income simpliciter. The assessee was only raising the claim that instead of the income being assessed in his individual hands, the same was assessable in the hands of his HUF. Returns had been filed in both the capacities. If the assessee was to be visited with the peril of a penalty under s. 271(1)(c) in such circumstances, it would be impossible for an assessee to raise a claim unless the merits of it had been prejudged as it were before being placed before the income-tax authorities. This is not the purpose of the penalty proceedings. Therefore, having regard to the above, we are of the view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case as discussed above, no penalties were leviable on the assessee under s. 271(1)(c) for any of the assessment years in question. 21. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.
-
1990 (5) TMI 70 - ITAT DELHI-C
Question Of Fact, Reference To High Court ... ... ... ... ..... under section 41(2), second proviso, should be computed by deducting depreciation actually allowed under section 32 and not any notional depreciation allowable under section 32 from the written down value of trucks within the meaning of section 43(6)(b)? In answering this question, thePunjaband Haryana High Court held We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The decision on the first point does not admit of any difficulty because it stands concluded against the Revenue because of the view taken by the Supreme Court of India in Madeva Upendra Sinai v. Union of India 1975 98 ITR 209. This shows that all the High Courts have consistently taken the view that depreciation actually allowed means expressly allowed and not any notional allowance. In this case other than the presumption that there was a notional allowance of depreciation, there was no actual allowance of depreciation. 8. The matter will now go before the regular Bench for decision according to majority view.
-
1990 (5) TMI 69 - ITAT DELHI-C
Profit In Lieu ... ... ... ... ..... s was done in the background that the company had made tremendous strides in terms of turnover and profits. Section 17(3)(ii) defines profits in lieu of salary which include any payment except certain specified items due to or received by an assessee from the employer. The payment in question has been received from the employer and is, therefore, to be treated as profits in lieu of salary. Having regard the totality of circumstances of the case, we have no doubt in our mind that the payment of Rs. 1,00,000 to the assessee as a direct nexus with the assessee being an employee of the company and the payment in question was not on account of any personal qualities other than the qualities of an excellent employee. We, therefore, hold that the Departmental authorities were justified in assessing the aforesaid sum of Rs. 1,00,000 as income of the assessee We, therefore, uphold the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed
-
1990 (5) TMI 68 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... le. On enquiry, the CIT(A) learnt that the rolling mill was working for 3 shifts of 6 hours each. The furnace was working for 21 hours or more. The employees in the factory had been paid full wages in respect of each shift for 6 hours. It was explained that the workers cannot work for more than two hours at a stretch because of excessive heat and that is why each shift consists of 6 hours. The CIT(A) accepted that the assessee is eligible for the deduction. He pointed out that nowhere it has been laid down that extra shift should constitute 8 hours. 19. The department is on appeal. It is an admitted position that the furnace had worked for 21 hours. This means that definitely more than two shifts have been worked. Even with the findings that each shift worked only for 6 hours, we do not see why the claim for triple shift allowance should be denied. The assessee is entitled to it. 20. In the result, the assessee s appeal is partly allowed and the departmental appeal dismissed.
-
1990 (5) TMI 67 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... essee. The next point made by Shri Bakhshi is that the employees were attending so many other works and so the expenditure in respect of working other than collection charges cannot be claimed as a deduction under this head. We will agree with Shri Bakhshi to this proposition. As collection charges the assessee can claim only that part of the expenditure which is referable to collection. However, the other part of the expenditure which is for the maintenance of the building security of the building and to attend to the requirements of the tenants is also expenditure borne by the landlord. Such expenditure, if not deductible under collection charges would have to be considered in computing the annual letting value. Either way, the assessee would get the benefit of the expenditure. Taking all these into account, we are of the opinion that the assessee s claim should be accepted in toto. 8. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed and the assessee s appeal is allowed.
-
1990 (5) TMI 66 - ITAT DELHI-B
Revision, Powers Of Commissioner ... ... ... ... ..... ng the, record of the assessee-firm before making the assessment. May be true that the ITO might have had knowledge of a search being conducted in the premises of the, partners of the assessee-firm, I do not think that that knowledge is enough to hold that the assessment made on the firm is such as to be called erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue unless the seized material was communicated to the ITO to be inquired into. Without going into the merits of other contentions raised before me, I hold in my limited capacity as a Third Member, that the view taken by the learned Accountant Member appears to be correct and justified and I agree with him. The learned Judicial Member had not enquired into the nature of the documents that formed part of the department s paper book and construed them as relating to the assessee-firm which it was not. 6. Now the matter will go before the regular Bench to dispose of the appeal in accordance with opinion of the majority.
-
1990 (5) TMI 65 - ITAT DELHI-B
Expenditure On Maintenance ... ... ... ... ..... does not change its nature from a deposit account to that of a current account. We are, therefore, of the view that the Special Bench decision would in all fours apply to the facts of the present case. The Ahmedabad Bench decision the learned Members have quoted from the minority observation while the majority view was that whenever interest is paid in any account by whatever name called, it would have to be treated as a deposit account. The Ahmedabad Bench chose to follow the Madhya Pradesh High Court s decision on the basis of the observation made that the current account was not in the nature of the deposit account. The finding of the instant case as brought out above is that the account on which interest was paid was in the nature of a deposit account. Therefore, the Ahmedabad Bench decision would have no applicability to the facts of the instant case before us. The disallowance made under section 40A(8) is accordingly confirmed. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed
-
1990 (5) TMI 64 - ITAT COCHIN
Accounting Year, Business Loss, Sales Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... reasonable extent to which gift can be made, the value of the gifted articles in this case came to about Rs. 30,000 only. Hence no gift is involved in this case, even according to the standards of the revenue. Suffice it to say that according to the Calcutta High Court decision as well as the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision, which is approvedly quoted in the Calcutta High Court decision, an unmarried daughter has the right to demand the marriage expenses from out of the joint family funds. When those funds are spent by the Karta of the joint family for marriage expenses of the daughter, there is no question of any transfer involved, for a daughter is as much a member of the family as any other male member. Hence, in our view, there is no gift involved. We also hold that the lower authorities did not properly appreciate the Calcutta High Court decision, though it was cited before them for acceptance. We therefore sot aside the gift-tax assessment order and allow the appeal
-
1990 (5) TMI 63 - ITAT CALCUTTA-C
Depreciation Actually Allowed ... ... ... ... ..... tal representative Sri M. Pal. 26. We have gone through the bye-laws and regulations of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. particularly the bye-laws pointed out by the learned departmental representative Sri M. Pal and the learned representative for the assessee-company Sri G.N. Singh. We do not find any error either in technicality or in legalities of the transactions. It cannot be forced to come to such a conclusion on the basis of the evidence before us. Therefore, there are no good reasons why the arguments advanced on behalf of the assessee-company by Sri Singh should not be accepted to hold that the loss incurred by the assessee-company in the share dealings is the genuine loss and the same is allowable by way of deduction from the income of the assessee-company. With this view of the matter we are unable to agree either with the ITO or with the CIT(Appeals) on the issue in question. 27. In the result, the appellant-company succeeds and the appeals are allowed
-
1990 (5) TMI 62 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
Income Of HUF ... ... ... ... ..... that until the birth of a son the personal law of the assessee governed, it was held that the income was chargeable to income-tax in the hands of the assessee as his individual income and not that of the family. 5. Since the present case of the assessee before me squarely falls within the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of M. Balasubramanian, it is to be distinguished from the earlier Supreme Court decision for the same reasons and the primary rule of intention of the donor is to be applied. In that view of the matter, the gifted property cannot be assessed as the income of the individual. It has to be separately assessed as the income of the HUF as held by the Hon ble Madras High Court. I hold accordingly and allow the claim of the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeals for both the years are allowed and the assessing officer is directed to exclude this income from the gifted property from the income of the individual assessee for both the years
-
1990 (5) TMI 61 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
Assessment Proceedings, Penalty Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... show the bona fides of the assessee. Therefore, we are of the opinion that merely because this amount was offered for taxation, it cannot be presumed to be concealed income of the assessee, nor can it be presumed that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. We accordingly hold that provisions of section 271(1)(c) are not applicable to the present case, and hereby confirm the finding of CIT(A). 10. In the result, Revenue s appeal is dismissed. Per Shri R.N. Singhal, Accountant Member --- I agree with my learned brother. Department s appeal deserves to be dismissed. I need, however, highlight the following three factual aspects --- (i) The penalty order is rather too brief. (ii) The department has not resolved the contradiction between the stamped acknowledgements given by the recipient of the commission and his subsequent denial orally. (iii) The department has not even proved the ultimate destination of the cheques or the amounts given for commission
-
1990 (5) TMI 60 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... y for deduction under ss. 80HH and 80-I. It is, therefore, immaterial whether the stock or the income is disclosed. The end-result of both the disclosures will remain the same. 7. Taking into account totality of the circumstances, e.g., the declaration made by the assessee which has to be accepted on its face value in view of the circular of the CBDT contained in D.O.No. 281/50-86-IT (Inv.III), dt. 17th June,1986 and the clarification issued by the Chief Commissioner and circumstantial evidence disclosed above, we have no hesitation in holding that the income voluntarily disclosed under the Amnesty Scheme can be said to have been derived from the industrial undertaking, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary brought on record by the Revenue. We are, therefore, unable to sustain the orders of the lower authorities on this account. Their a orders are reversed. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow the deduction accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
....
|
