|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 316 Records
-
1991 (7) TMI 167 - ITAT MADRAS-D
... ...
... ... ..... spent Rs. 1,750 for art work. Printing charges of the said annual report wee not included under the head advertisement now under consideration. They were already allowed separately by the Assessing Officer. So this amount of Rs. 1,750 also should be excluded from the purview of s. 37(3A). In a similar manner, the advertisements for recruitment of staff cannot be called advertisement within the meaning of sub-s. (3A) as the same is not intended for advertising or publicising or promoting the sale of the assessee s products/services. So the amount of Rs. 13,040 also should be excluded from the purview of s. 37(3A). In this view of the matter, I uphold the order of CIT(A). CO NO 207/Mad/89 10. The cross-objection filed by the assessee is only to support the order of the CIT(A). In view of our finding in the departmental appeal, the cross objection becomes superfluous. 11. In the result, the departmental appeal as well as the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed.
-
1991 (7) TMI 165 - ITAT MADRAS-D
Certain Assets, Deduction In Respect, Estate Duty Act, His Net Wealth, Valuation Date, Wealth Tax
-
1991 (7) TMI 163 - ITAT MADRAS-C
... ...
... ... ..... r(A) himself adopted the sole method of ascertaining the value of this very asset by adopting the income yielding method, we hold that the said method is the only correct method. However, we are of the view that the assessee is entitled to interest on working capital and also deduction towards assessee s labour, risk and enterprise in running the lodge, which was not taken into consideration by the Commissioner(A). Giving due concession for the omissions committed in correctly following the computation by income yielding method, we are of the view that fixing the value of this asset at Rs. 13 lakhs for each of the two assessment years under consideration would be more realistic and would sufficiently meet the ends of justice. We, therefore, direct that this valuation should be substituted as the value of Alankar Hotel for each of the asst. yrs. 1983-84 and 1984-85. 9. In the result the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the Department are dismissed.
-
1991 (7) TMI 162 - ITAT MADRAS-C
... ...
... ... ..... t they were doing was to attest the factum of Jawahar Palaniappan s affixing his signature to the document. 52. In view of the foregoing, therefore, we hold that the CIT(A) was not justified in accepting the said document dt. 31st Aug., 1982 as a note or memo recording the factum of prior partition. He should have seen that the document formed an essential part of the process of dividing the joint family properties and that, for a fact, it was the only piece of evidence relied upon by the assessee. He failed to do so. This led him into the further error of holding that the said document did not require to be registered under s. 17(b) of the Registration Act, 1908. 53. In view of the foregoing, therefore, we set aside the impugned orders of the Commissioner(A), relating to proceedings both under the IT Act, 1961 and the WT Act, 1957 and restore those of the Assessing Officer relating to the proceedings referred to above. 54. In the result, the Departmental appeals are allowed.
-
1991 (7) TMI 159 - ITAT MADRAS-A
... ...
... ... ..... less the partly obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute. We, therefore, find that on the facts of the case there was no refusal to sign the statement as such for which the penalty could be imposed. We accordingly cancel the penalty. 10. The appeal is allowed.
-
1991 (7) TMI 156 - ITAT MADRAS-A
Accounting Year, Attributable To, Factory Building, Foreign Company, Non-resident Company, Plant And Machinery, Tea Estate
-
1991 (7) TMI 155 - ITAT MADRAS-A
Closing Stock, Custom Duty, Deduction In Respect, Excise Duty, Foreign Exchange, Investment Allowance, Plant And Machinery, Previous Year, Raw Material
-
1991 (7) TMI 152 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... o be considered for determining the value of the property, we may observe that since the matter is open before the Assessing Officer, these arguments may be submitted before him or the Valuation Officer and they may be considered by those authorities. However, so far as the claim of Shri Ranka to the effect that the provisions of r. 1BB only apply in this case because the WTO had made such observations in High Court assessment order are concerned, we are unable to agree with him because we have held that while assessing the value of the property under consideration, the Assessing Officer had ignored the provisions of s. 16A r/w Circular of the CBDT and hence the observations made by the WTO while assessing the value of this property were not in conformity with the provisions of law or the directions of the Board and hence cannot be final. 15. Taking all these factors into account, we uphold the decision of the CWT(A). The appeal filed by the assessee is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1991 (7) TMI 150 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... s. 139(9) opportunity to rectify the defect within the period 15 days from the date of such intimation should be given. The opportunity was since given for less than 15 days it was no opportunity in the eye of law. However, in view of the above discussion it is definite that the return filed by the assessee was invalid and despite the fact that the verification was later signed on 18th Nov., 1982 the return did not become valid. The assessment was thus framed on an invalid return. No penalty under s. 271(1)(a) can be levied in the course of assessment proceedings commenced on the basis of invalid return. The order of the CIT(A) cancelling the penalty is, therefore, upheld though for reasons other than recorded by him. 7. The cross-objection has been filed by the assessee simply supporting the order of the CIT(A) without claiming any relief. It, therefore, does not require to be dealt with separately. 8. In the result the appeal is dismissed and the cross-objection is allowed.
-
1991 (7) TMI 149 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... as guilty of concealment of income. The Delhi High Court in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd., held, Penalty for concealment of income can be imposed only if there is conscious and deliberate concealment on the part of the assessee. The mere fact that a claim for expenditure stands disallowed does not by itself lead to the inference that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars in regard to that item. 16. The order addition of Rs.3.109 is also on the basis of mere estimate and the ITO has not proved that assessee has deliberately understated the cost of construction of the nursing home. 17. Considering, therefore, all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that this is not a CIT case for levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. We accordingly cancel the penalty levied by the Revenue. The assessee s appeal is allowed. 18. In the result, ITA No. 1912/Hyd/1987 is dismissed and ITA No. 1073/Hyd/1989 is allowed.
-
1991 (7) TMI 148 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... years under appeal only on the basis of his findings in the assessment proceedings which he is not legally entitled to do. The findings in the assessment proceedings alone are not enough for the purpose of quasi-criminal proceedings under s. 271(1)(c). His penalty order is absolutely silent on the issue whether the assessee is guilty of conscious concealment. We are of the considered view that for the incompetence, lethargy, sickness and senility of the Accountant, the assessee cannot be punished under the provision of s. 271(1)(C). We are also of the view that it was a case of bona fide mistake which was not within the knowledge of the partners. Had it not been so, the correct return for sale-tax which the ITO has made the basis for his assessment orders, would not have been filed by the assessee. In view of the above, we are of the view that the CIT(A) was justified in cancelling the penalty orders. We, therefore, uphold his orders. 18. The Revenue s appeals are dismissed.
-
1991 (7) TMI 147 - ITAT DELHI-E
... ...
... ... ..... ng Officer has become final. The learned counsel for the assessee has not been able to show as to why the partners or their counsel or any responsible person of the assessee firm could not comply with the requirement of the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. The reasonable cause had to be shown by the assessee and it was not for the Revenue to establish contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee or deliberant defiance of law on its part. Even the existence of a dispute amongst the partners has not been established. We have also not been shown that the disputes, if any, we real or so grave that even the statutory notices issued by the Department could not be complied with. We are, therefore, satisfied that this was a fit case for the levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(b) for all the aforesaid 4 years and no interference in the orders of the CIT(A) is warranted. 26. All the four appeals of the assessee pertaining to penalty under s. 271(1)(b) are, therefore, dismissed.
-
1991 (7) TMI 146 - ITAT DELHI-E
Assessing Officer, Assessment Proceedings, Such Person ... ... ... ... ..... iled a return on29-7-1986showing nil wealth. The assessee s claim was that since there had been total partition of all the assets of the HUF as on7-1-1982, there were no assets of the HUF on the valuation date which fell on 31-31982. The assessing officer made assessment on net wealth of Rs. 2,50,000 on the footing that total partition had not been recognised in this case. The learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the order of the assessing officer. The assessee has come up in further appeal. The issue of assessability or otherwise of wealth for assessment year 1982-83 is linked with the issue of total partition of the assessee HUF. We have already held above that the claim of total partition of the assessee HUF had rightly been rejected by the Departmental authorities. In that view of the matter, the assessing officer was right in making assessment of Wealth-tax in the hands of the assessee for assessment year 1982-83. 18. This appeal also fails and is dismissed
-
1991 (7) TMI 145 - ITAT DELHI-E
Late Filing, Reasonable Cause ... ... ... ... ..... has become final. The learned counsel for the assessee has not been able to show as to why the partners or their counsel or any responsible person of the assessee-firm could not comply with the requirements of the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. The reasonable cause had to be shown by the assessee and it was not for the Revenue to establish contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee or deliberate defiance of law on its part. Even the existence of a dispute amongst the partners has not been established. We have also not been shown that the dispute, if any, was real or so grave that even the statutory notices issued by the Department could not be complied with. We are, therefore, satisfied that this was a fit case for the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) for all the aforesaid 4 years and no interference in the orders of the CIT(A) is warranted. 26. All the four appeals of the assessee pertaining to penalty under section 271(1)(b) are, therefore, dismissed
-
1991 (7) TMI 144 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... sions as also the facts on record. Findings recorded by the CIT(A)/ have not been assailed before us on behalf of the Revenue. According to the findings of the CIT(A), money received on chits by the assessee was utilised for the purpose of business and that the loss on chits was sustained during the course of business. In view of these findings the CIT(A) was justified in allowing assessee rsquo s claim for loss. In taking this view we are fortified by the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Kovur Textiles and Co. The decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case cited on behalf of the Revenue is no doubt against the assessee. It is, however, well settled that the view favourable to the assessee should be followed. In the instant case on the facts of the case, the assessee rsquo s claim for loss was allowable in view of the aforesaid decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. 5. In view of what has been said above, the appeal stands dismissed.
-
1991 (7) TMI 143 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... not be sufficient to clothe the present assessee with the burden of the alleged extra profit unless it is also shown that the commission agent passed on the whole or part of the extra profit to the assessee. For the reasons discussed above, we hold that there was no cogent material before the Assessing Officer to have reason to believe that the assessee did not disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for her assessment or that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Therefore, the initiation of action under s. 147(a) was invalid. We also hold that there was no justification for holding that the assessee had, during the relevant accounting periods, earned extra profit in the sums of Rs. 2,36,666 and Rs. 3,11,361 or in any other sum for the two years under consideration. Therefore, even on merits the assessments of the aforesaid amounts were unjustified. We, therefore, allow the assessee s appeal and annul the reassessments made by the Assessing Officer.
-
1991 (7) TMI 142 - ITAT DELHI-D
Carry Forward And Set Off, Unabsorbed Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... High Court also came to the same conclusion. Thus, as many as four High Courts have taken a view in favour of the assessee, while the only view in favour of the revenue is that of the Madras High Court. The learned counsel for the assessee felt sorry that when the earlier year s appeal was heard he failed to bring to the notice of the Tribunal the contrary view taken by so many High Courts. It is now settled law that when two views are possible, a view which is favourable to the assessee, should be adopted. This is all the more so when several High Courts take the view in favour of the assessee. Therefore, although for assessment year 1982-83 this Tribunal took a contrary view, for the years under consideration we hold that the assessee is entitled to set off of business loss/depreciation against the profit taxable under section 41(2) of the Act. We, therefore, upheld the CIT(A) s order on the point. 8. to 11. These paras are not reproduced here, as they involve minor issues.
-
1991 (7) TMI 141 - ITAT DELHI-D
Assessing Officer, Assessment Order ... ... ... ... ..... d impose penalties upto31-3-1986. The penalties were, however, levied on29-10-1985and were, therefore, much before the period of limitation expired. Since the period computed under section 275(a)(i) expired later than the period contemplated by section 275(a)(ii) we have to go by the period which expired later. The penalties imposed on29-10-1985were, therefore, within time and not barred by limitation as wrongly held by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). We accept the Revenue s contention in this behalf and reverse the finding of the learned CIT(Appeals). 7. We, however, find that the learned CIT(Appeals) has disposed off the appeals relating to penalties on the ground of limitation and has not decided the matters on merits. These matters will now go back to the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for proper disposal, in accordance with law, on the merits of the case. We hold accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeals are allowed, to the extent indicated above
-
1991 (7) TMI 140 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ...
... ... ..... is that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 60,000 made on account of staff welfare and Diwali expenses. The IAC (Asst.)disallowed the same on the ground that large part of the expenditure was in the nature of entertainment expenses. The CIT(A) after considering the details furnished before him, deleted the addition. 53. The learned Departmental Representative supported the action of the IAC (Asst.). The learned counsel for the assessee relied upon the order of the Tribunal for the asst. yrs. 1982-83 and 1983-84 whereby the deletion of the disallowance was upheld. 54. We have considered the rival submission. We find that on similar facts the Tribunal has upheld the deletion in the asst. yrs. 1982-83 and 1983-84. For the reasons given in those orders, we find no substance in the Revenue s ground. The same is hereby rejected. 55. In the result, the assessee s appeal ITA No. 1466/Del/88 is partly allowed whereas the Revenue s appeal ITA No. 1325/Del/88 is dismissed.
-
1991 (7) TMI 139 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ...
... ... ..... tion of the well there may bot be any return on that account. This line of thinking, therefore, does not establish that the above acts of development were not actually carried out by the assessee. 32. Lastly, the learned Departmental Representative contended that most of the expenditure incurred by the assessee was in sums above Rs. 2,500 and payments were made in cash. Therefore, the expenditure is disallowable under s. 40A(3) of the Act. Sec. 40A(3) has not been invoked by the AO or by the CIT(A) and, in our view, such a plea cannot be raised by the Revenue at this stage because the assessee has had no opportunity of showing why payments were made in cash. This plea is, therefore, rejected. 33. No other point was raised in the aforesaid appeals and in view of the above discussion, both the appeals are partly allowed. The profit arising on the sale of the land in asst. yr. 1986-87 shall be recomputed by the AO in the light of our decision on the various items of expenditure.
............
|
