|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 214 Records
-
1991 (6) TMI 120 - ITAT MADRAS-D
Orders Prejudicial To Interests, Show-cause Notice ... ... ... ... ..... nful employment or occupation has been substantially reduced. Further, the substantial reduction in the assessee s capacity to engage in a gainful employment because of the permanent physical disability cannot be gauged by a mere comparison of incomes over a number of years. In this particular case, had the assessee not been affected by this permanent physical disability, he would have got a better employment or occupation and he would have earned double or triple of the incomes he had actually earned during the years under consideration. In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the Commissioner is not justified in assuming lawful jurisdiction under section 263 and in directing the Assessing Officer to modify the assessments by withdrawing deduction already allowed under section 80U in the assessment years under consideration. Accordingly I annul the impugned order of the Commissioner passed under section 263. 8. In the result, the appeals are allowed
-
1991 (6) TMI 116 - ITAT MADRAS-B
Closing Stock, Custom Duty, Deduction In Respect, Excise Duty, Foreign Exchange, Investment Allowance, Plant And Machinery, Previous Year, Raw Material
-
1991 (6) TMI 113 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... s also right in observing that Shri Sirohya had stood the test of cross-examination and that the assessee had probably surrendered the amount in question earlier on account of its difficulty in contacting Shri Sirohya at that time and in production him and his bank account before the ITO and since the surrender of the amount was expected to close the chapter of proceedings under the Act and to bring him peace of mind. The statements of the two partners also do not militate against the cast of the assessee. Thus having regard to all the facts and circumstances as detailed above, we come to the clear factual finding that the explanation furnished by the assessee was bona fide and that all the facts relating to the correct computation of the assessee s income had been furnished by him. Therefore, the learned Commissioner(A) was eminently justified on facts in cancelling the penalty. We uphold his order. 11. In the result the appeal filed by the Department fails and is dismissed.
-
1991 (6) TMI 111 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... liberately made false claims for claiming the deductions. It is not the purport of the law that the assessees should undertake an exercise in self-adjudication before claiming any expenses or deductions. If that were so, the levy of penalties under s. 271(1)(c) would be reduced to an automation. The law as it exists under s. 271(1)(c) with the Explanations and provisos as applicable do not envisage such a position. Accordingly, having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the clear view that none of the items referred to above attracted any penalty of the clear view that none of the items referred to above attracted any penalty under s. 271(1)(C). The penalty levied has, therefore, to be cancelled in its entirety. 7. In the result ITA No. 286/Jp/87 filed by the assessee is allowed, whereas the department s appeal No. 287/Jp/87 fails and is dismissed, whereas the assessee s Cross-Objection No.20/Jp/89 is to be taken as having been partly accepted.
-
1991 (6) TMI 110 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... lding to its original condition at its own cost. True the terms and conditions of the agreement as evidenced by the said letter do not specifically lay down that the cost of repairs would be borne by the owner, however, under s. 20 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, a copy whereof is available at page 45 of the paper book, the owner was statutorily liable to keen in good and tenantable repair the premises to which this Act applies except in cases where the tenant has undertaken to keep premises in repair. Therefore, the provisions contained in s.20 would be applicable, with the result that it has to be held that the cost of repair was to be borne by the assessee. In this view of the matter I am of the opinion that under sub-cl. (a) of cl. (i) of s. 24(1) the assessee was entitled to deduction of a sum equal to 1/6th of the annual letting value of the property on account of repairs. 7. In view of what has been said above, the appeal is allowed.
-
1991 (6) TMI 109 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... able under the head salaries , and on that amount it has to pay income-tax on the basis of average which means that the annual tax has to be divided by 12 or the number of months in which the employee was in service and that average is normally the amount to be deducted each month. Sub-s. (3) of s.192 allows the employer the right of increasing or reducing the amount to be deducted for the purpose of adjusting any excess or deficiency arising our of any previous deduction during the financial year. Therefore, reading this s. 192 as well it is clear that though normally it is the average of the yearly tax that is relevant, but by virtue of sub-s. (3) which allows adjustment on account of excess or deficiency, the amount of tax deductible each month need not necessarily be uniform. Therefore, the variance being on this account, the AAC was justified in holding that no interest was leviable. The order of the AAC is accordingly upheld. 7. The appeals by the Revenue are dismissed.
-
1991 (6) TMI 108 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... tain the explanation of the distillers or the person executing the bond and forward the same together with a full report of the circumstances to the Assistant Excise Commissioner or the Deputy Excise Commissioner of the charge in which the Distillery is situated. The Assistant Excise Commissioner or the Deputy Excise Commissioner shall charge duty on excess wastage provided that when the total wastage in a consignment is within the allowable limit, Deputy Assistant Excise Commissioner of the charge may write off the excess wastage in any particular wooden cask or metal vessel. Provided further that the Deputy Excise Commissioner may write off the duty upto Rs. 500 if he is satisfied that the excess wastage in a consignment was on account of an accident on other unavoidable cause but in other case the matter shall be referred to the Excise Commissioner for orders. Cases in which the Deputy Excise Commissioner writes off duty shall be reported by him to the Excise Commissioner.
-
1991 (6) TMI 107 - ITAT DELHI-C
Closing Stock, Equity Shares, Market Value, Preference Shares, Previous Year ... ... ... ... ..... 85 of the Companies Act, 1956. Hence, in out opinion, the tax authorities were justified in rejecting valuation adopted by the assessee. 10. During the course of submissions, it was further brought to our notice by Shri Pradeep Dinodia that variation in the Valuation of shares of Ajay Foundary Private Limited, Pratap Rajasthan Special Steel Limited and Arvind Espat Limited shares, apparent mistakes have been committed by the Assessing Officer and, therefore, necessary directions be issued to the Assessing Officer to rectify the mistakes. There being no objection from the learned Senior Departmental Representative, we direct the Assessing Officer to remove mistakes, if any, committed while adopting the valuation in respect of shares of these three companies. 11. To the extent as above, the appellate order is modified and the Assessing Officer is directed to pass an appropriate consequential order. 12. In the result, for the purpose of statistics, the appeal is allowed in part
-
1991 (6) TMI 106 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... eclaring what shall be the consequence of non-compliance, not doing that in the manner or form prescribed will be fatal to its validity. This is the view expressed by the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Phoolmati Devi (1983) 35 CTR (All) 331 (1983) 144 ITR (All) 954. For the foregoing reasons we hold that the return filed in this case is invalid and non est in the eye of law and the assessment framed on the basis on the basis of such return is also invalid and is liable to be cancelled. 16. In view of the above finding we need not go into the merit of the additional ground raised by the assessee in the cross-objection. The departmental appeal also becomes infructuous and, therefore, it is not necessary to go into the merit of the ground raised in the departmental appeal. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the assessment framed in this case is annulled. Cross-objection, filed by the assessee thus stands allowed to this extent. The departmental appeal is dismissed.
-
1991 (6) TMI 105 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... at form No.29 and the revised estimates of advance tax had been filed in time as per evidence placed at pages 22 and 24 of the assessee s compilation. It, was, therefore submitted that there was no justification for charging the interest which had actually been charged under s. 217 of the Act. 21. We have considered the submissions on both the sides.Interest under s. 215 or 217 is mandatory. Merely because a speaking order in this regard has not been passed would not vitiate the order itself. The Assessing officer had given a categorical direction for charging of interest and whether that interest had to be changed under s. 215 or 217 had been left to be worked out. We, therefore, hold that there was no infirmity in the order of the Assessing officer in this regard. The Assessing Officer is, however, directed to recompute the interest chargeable, if any, on the basis of the income finally determined as a result of this order of the Tribunal. 22. The appeal is allowed in part.
-
1991 (6) TMI 104 - ITAT DELHI-B
In Part, Income From Property, Religious Or Charitable Trust ... ... ... ... ..... ge it was pointed out that the issue of computation of assessee s income for assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 is also an issue for the consideration of the Tribunal in assessee s appeal for those two years being ITA Nos. 1849 and 1850/Del/88. Under these circumstances we keep our findings limited on Ground No. 4 in both these two years with our holding that the CIT(A) erred in holding the provisions of sections 11 and 12 as applicable to assessee s case for assessment years 197374 and 1974-75 even though the assessee had failed to comply with the provisions of section 12A of the Act. We accordingly accept and allow ground No. 4 in appeals for assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. 36. In the result, Revenue s appeals for assessment year 1970-71 to assessment year 1972-73 ITA No. 3794, 3263 and 3264/Del./88 , are dismissed. Revenue s appeals for assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75 ITA Nos. 3265 and 3266/Del/88 are partly allowed to the extent and in the manner mentioned above
-
1991 (6) TMI 103 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... issue had come up before us for assessment year 1985-86 and we have upheld the order of the first appellate authority for reasons stated, in para 26 of this order. For similar reasons, we reject the Department s ground of appeal. 30. The next point at issue is against the deletion of disallowance of interest payments made by the firm to several trusts. The amount involved is Rs. 2,90,554. Similar issue came up in the appeal for 1984-85 and 1985-86, and for reasons stated in para 19 of this order we uphold the order of the first appellate authority. The Revenue s contention is dismissed. 31. In the appeal for 1987-88 the only point of dispute is against the deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 3,03,943 being the interest payments made to several trusts. For reasons stated in para 19 of our order, we uphold the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in having deleted the disallowance. 2. In the result, the Revenue s appeals are dismissed and the assessee s appeal is partly allowed.
-
1991 (6) TMI 102 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... cident of his business as clearing agent . We accordingly hold that the godown rent of Rs. 2,21,068 received by the assessee from the DGS and D under the C and F contract in question was rightly brought to tax by the ITO under the head income from business . 37. In view of the foregoing, therefore, we consider that the first appellate authority erred in holding that the godown rent of Rs. 2,21,068 received by the assessee from DGS and D must be brought to tax under the head Income from property and not under the head Income from business . He misdirected himself when he thought that the assessee s case was one that fell under Type C above. This, in turn, led him into the error of relying on reported cases which dealt with Type C cases and which are not all applicable to the assessee s case. We therefore, set aside the impugned order of the first appellate authority on this issue and restore that of the Assessing Officer. 38. In the result, the Departmental appeal is allowed.
-
1991 (6) TMI 101 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... 31st March, 1987 for the work of Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Ltd., at Ammonium Sulphate Caprolacam Project site at Udyogamandal, Ellor, By hiring out the bulldozer from the assessee In the light of the evidence, ex facie the assessee appears to have a strong case for deduction of depreciation Without prejudice to his contention that the asset was in fact put to use at least for a day in the relevant previous year, Sri Srinivasan, alternatively contended that even paise user would be sufficient to have the claim allowed. Sri Abraham, the learned senior departmental representative submitted that as the CIT(A) has not resolved this issue, the matter may be restored to him. We find force in his submission. Accordingly, the issue of depreciation is restored to the CIT(A) who will decide the issue in accordance with law after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 24. In the result, the assessee s appeal is partly allowed and Revenue s appeal is dismissed.
-
1991 (6) TMI 100 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... he same subject but that decision was rendered on a writ petition where there is a very short mention on the effect of the proviso that was introduced w.e.f. 1st April, 1980. Thus, there are two decisions of the High Court one of which is favourable to the assessee besides being a detailed one and we adopt that decision. In the result, we hold as follows 1. The sales-tax collected by the assessee and remained unpaid was certainly a trading receipt. 2. However, there was a matching liability for the assessee to pay to the credit of the Government such sales-tax collection. 3. The assessee had paid such collections within the time prescribed under the ST Act. 4. The provisions of s. 43B cannot be invoked de hors the first proviso to the said section which, though came into force w.e.f. 1st April, 1988, is only clarificatory in nature and retrospective in operation. Therefore, the addition or disallowance of Rs. 32,467 is hereby deleted. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1991 (6) TMI 99 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... during the year, i.e., for the assessment year under appeal, on WDV as on 31-10-1986. In view of the above note, the impugned order of the ld. assessing officer merits to be upheld, since it complies with the provisions of section 115J. The resultant effect is that when the assessee has claimed depreciation in relation to the assessment year under appeal, but has not claimed depreciation relating to earlier assessment year, within the meaning of section 115J read with Parts II and III of the Sixth Schedule and clause (b) of first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 205 of the Companies Act, the depreciation has to be taken as provided for and the assessee cannot claim set off of earlier years depreciation in computing the book profit as is envisaged in the Explanation attached to section 115J(1). The impugned order of the learned first appellate authority stands reversed and that of the assessing officer stands restored. 8. The Revenue succeeds and its appeal stands allowed
-
1991 (6) TMI 98 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Assessment Proceedings, Orders Prejudicial To Interests, Tax Authorities, Valuation Report ... ... ... ... ..... which is under appeal covered the period from 1-4-1984 to 31-3-1985. Notice under section 139(2) could be issued and served only during this period. Admittedly, notice issued on 4-7-1985 is beyond this statutory period provided for notice under section 139(2). The assessment nowhere indicates that the assessing authority invoked the provisions contained in sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, when the conclusion was arrived at by the learned Commissioner that assessment based upon notice issued beyond the statutory period provided for issuance of notice under section 139(2) was bad in law, he was acting only in accordance with law. Since notice was without jurisdiction, the proceedings based thereon were apparently ab initio void. The assessment order was, therefore, rightly held to be not in accordance with law. It was rightly annulled. The order of the ld. Commissioner is therefore, confirmed. 10. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed
-
1991 (6) TMI 97 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
Accounting Year ... ... ... ... ..... was taxable in the hands of the assessee. We vacate the order of the CIT(A) and restore that of the ITO. 9. Before parting with the case, we may observe that the objection raised by the revenue for the assessee s right to raise the ground of non-taxability of the amount of perquisite has no force, in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Hazarimal Nagii and Co. 1962 46 ITR 1168 according to which, the only limitation is that the respondent cannot be allowed to urge any ground that will affect the appellant adversely and place him in a position more disadvantageous than before. 10. It may further be pointed out that in assessee s appeal for this very year in ITA No. 2570/Bom/1 986, the Tribunal by its order dated 14th June, 1990, had directed that the previous year of the assessee should be calendar year and not the financial year. The assessment would accordingly be revised in the light of the said order. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed
-
1991 (6) TMI 96 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
Undistributed Profits ... ... ... ... ..... ection (4) of the said section. 9. Even assuming for the sake of argument that sub-section (4) of section 104 is not applicable in the instant case, the profit of the assessee has to be bifurcated between the manufacturing and trading activity. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hoechst Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. the provisions of section 104 could be applied only in the case of the profits attributable to the trading activity. Under section 109(3) of the Act, the assessee is required to distribute 60 per cent of the profits attributable to the trading activity which works out to Rs. 2,53,130. Since, in the instant case, the assessee has distributed dividend of Rs. 6 lakhs, there is no question of applying the provisions of section 104 of the Act. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we have no hesitation in setting aside the orders passed by the IT authorities in the present proceedings. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed
-
1991 (6) TMI 95 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
Advance Tax, Jewellery And Ornaments, Undisclosed Income ... ... ... ... ..... ources to pay the selfassessment tax/advance tax demand. The allegation of buying a flat worth Rs. 9,00,000 by the assessee jointly with his son shortly after the search operation had not been substantiated on the record. Similarly, it is not shown as to whether the assessee had any other assets of adequate value in the name of the HUFor any trust and that it was possible for the assessee to have disposed of the assets of such HUF or the trust and apply the sale proceeds thereof in the satisfaction of his personal tax demand. 7. From the above discussion of the facts, we conclude that the explanation offered by the assessee for non-payment of self-assessment tax/advance tax could not be held to be otherwise than reasonable and satisfactory and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was, therefore, justified in cancelling the penalty imposed under section 140A(3) of the Act. This appeal by the department thus fails and is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed
............
|
