|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 226 Records
-
1992 (10) TMI 147 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... and truck MTV 9893, because they do not satisfy the functional test laid down by the Board. Correspondingly we hold that the assessee is not eligible for proportionate investment allowance and additional depreciation on these two trucks because the functional test laid down by the Board is not satisfied in this case. Coming to the depreciation schedule for the asst. yr. 1983-84, there were 8 tippers and one truck, and are eligible for investment allowance and additional depreciation. No registration is needed for two stone crushers and one cement mixre. For the asst. yr. 1984-85 all were contractor s machinery eligible for investment allowance and additional depreciation. In view of the factual and legal position stated above, subject to the directions given for the asst. yr. 1982-83, we uphold the decision of the CIT(A) directing the Assessing Officer to grant investment allowance and additional depreciation for the dumpers, tippers and trucks. 10. The appeals are dismissed.
-
1992 (10) TMI 144 - ITAT PUNE
Market Value, Orders Prejudicial To Interests ... ... ... ... ..... Hence from the market value of the property no amount is required to be deducted or adjusted, inasmuch as the transfer has taken place between the transferor and his only legal heir which is the exception to the bye-law of the Society vide clauses (iii) and (iv) of para 16 of the Indenture extracted above. Therefore, in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the restriction runs with the land irrespective of the lessee to whom it is transferred because the transfer was made to only son and legal heir. Viewed from this angle, the impugned revisional order of the CGT does not call for any interference. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the CGT was justified in invoking the jurisdiction under section 24 of the Gift Tax Act, 1958 and also in giving direction to the GTO to adopt the market value of the property without the adjustment of 50 of the unearned increase in the value of the land. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1992 (10) TMI 143 - ITAT PUNE
Minor Child ... ... ... ... ..... smaller HUFs also does not lend any support to the alleged creation of HUFs to assume the legal entity. Of course, there is no doubt the ITO was not entitled to change the status from that of HUFs to AOPs and the assessments made in that status also does not hold good. There are good and convincing reasons to conclude that the Karta of a Bigger HUF has acted in a manner of representative capacity and it would not be incorrect to say that the concept of constructive trust has come into existence. Having the constructive trust came into existence the assessment is required to be made in the representative capacity. Therefore it is just and proper to direct the Assessing Officer to assess the income of the constructive trusts in their representative capacity as per section 94 of the Indian Trust Act, at the maximum marginal rate. In this view of the matter the order of the Dy. CIT(A) is upheld on different reasons. 16. In the result, appellants fail and the appeals are dismissed
-
1992 (10) TMI 138 - ITAT NAGPUR
... ...
... ... ..... , 1963 could not be treated as having been made on 1st March, 1963. In that case, the payment was made but it was made late. Even then the interest was charged under s. 216. In (1982) 136 ITR 875 (Guj) on page 877, the Hon ble Gujarat High Court has quoted liberally from the decision of the Tribunal. In the reasonings of the Tribunal, it has been specifically mentioned that it is not only the filing of the estimate which is required but also the payment of advance tax on the basis of the estimate filed under s. 213(3A) which is also required. Even if this is not treated as the decision of the Gujarat High Court, the facts remains that such a view was taken by the Tribunal. Thus, we are of the opinion that two views in this regard are possible. Therefore, the Assessing Officer, in our opinion, was justified in rejecting the petition under s. 154 of the Act and the Dy. Commissioner(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal. 7. In the result, the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
1992 (10) TMI 135 - ITAT NAGPUR
Advance Tax, Assessing Officer, Mistake Apparent From Record ... ... ... ... ..... en the interest was charged under section 216. In Bharat Machinery and Hardware Mart s case on page 877, the Hon ble Gujarat High Court has quoted liberally from the decision of the ITAT. In the reasonings of the Tribunal, it has been specifically mentioned that it is not only the filing of the estimate which is required but also the payment of advance tax on the basis of the estimate filed under section 213(3A) which is also required but also the payment of advance tax on the basis of the estimate filed under section 213(3A) which is also required. Even if, this is not treated as the decision of the Gujarat High Court the facts remains that such a view was taken by the ITAT. Thus, we are of the opinion that two views in this regard are possible. Therefore, the Assessing Officer, in our opinion, was justified in rejecting the petition under section 154 of the Act and the DC(Appeals) was justified in dismissing the appeal. 7. In the result, the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
1992 (10) TMI 133 - ITAT MADRAS-B
Assessing Officer, Assessment Proceedings, Levy Of Penalty, Orders Prejudicial To Interests, Penalty For Concealment, Penalty Proceedings, Revised Return
-
1992 (10) TMI 132 - ITAT MADRAS-B
Assessing Officer, Intercorporate Dividends, Unabsorbed Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... g a particular interpretation of section 80E(1) in the case of Cainbay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. would equally be applicable to the interpretation of section 80M(1). What is more, we also have section 80AA, which, as pointed out earlier, was introduced for the specific, and indeed limited, purpose of making the Legislative intent clear, namely that the deduction admissible under section 80M would have to be calculated not with reference to the gross dividend, but with reference to the dividend net of the deductions admissible under sections 57(1) and 57(3) of the Act. Thus, in any view of the matter, there is no warrant for interpreting the provisions of section 80M read with section 80AA of the Act the way the Commissioner had done. 34. In view of the foregoing, therefore, we hold that the Commissioner was not justified in passing the impugned order in revision. We, therefore, set aside the said order in revision. 35. In the result, the assessee s appeal is allowed
-
1992 (10) TMI 127 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... ndantly clear that the failure to obtain the addition report in the prescribed forms is liable to be penalised under s. 271B of the IT Act. Though s. 44AB speaks of and a further report in the form prescribed in this section , s. 271B envisages penalty only for the failure to get the accounts audited and obtain a report thereof. As already mentioned, the assessee has already got the accounts audited under Company Law and, therefore, in our view, the provisions of s. 271B are not at all attracted. 15. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are, therefore, of the view that the CIT(A) was justified in cancelling the penalty order. We accordingly uphold his order. The Revenue s appeal is dismissed. 16. Coming to the cross objection by the assessee, it is seen that the cross objection has been filed to support the order of the CIT(A). Since, we have upheld the order of the CIT(A), the cross objection has become infructuous and is, therefore, dismissed as such.
-
1992 (10) TMI 126 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Assessed Income, Assessment Order, Original Assessment, Total Income
-
1992 (10) TMI 125 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
Applied To, Beneficiaries Unknown, Profits And Gains ... ... ... ... ..... applies to all the funds which were stated to have been not deposited in forms or modes specified under sub-section (5) of section 11. For all the above reasons we have to hold that these cases of two assessees were not governed by the proviso to section 164(2) but they were governed by section 164(2) only i.e. by the main sub-section itself and not of the proviso. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the action of the Income-tax Officer in applying ordinary rates applicable to AOP for the business income earned by these assessees for the assessment years under consideration before us is perfectly justified and such action of the Income-tax Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and the two sets of orders of the learned Commissioner do not appear to be correct under law and therefore, they are hereby set aside and the orders of the Income-tax Officer for these years are restored. 10. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed
-
1992 (10) TMI 124 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
Assessing Officer, Intercorporate Dividends, Unabsorbed Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... the additional report in the prescribed forms is liable to be penalised under section 271B of the IT Act. Though section 44AB speaks of and a further report in the form prescribed in this section , section 271B envisages penalty only for the failure to get the accounts audited and obtain a report thereof. As already mentioned, the assessee has already got the accounts audited under Company Law and, therefore, in our view, the provisions of section 271B are not at an attracted. 15. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case. we are, therefore, of the view that the CIT (Appeals) was justified in cancelling the penalty order. We accordingly uphold his order. The Revenue s appeal is dismissed. 16. Coming to the cross objection by the assessee, it is seen that the cross objection has been filed to support the order of the CIT (Appeals). Since we have upheld the order of the CIT (Appeals), the cross objection has become infructuous and is, therefore, dismissed as such
-
1992 (10) TMI 123 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
Financial Year, Income From Property, Religious Trust ... ... ... ... ..... not utlised within 10 years period of accumulation or in the immediately following year following the expiry of 10 years period of accumulation shall be deemed to be the income of such person. Therefore, the deemed income is the income referred to in sub-section (2). Sub-section (2) inter alia refers to accumulated income for a period of 10 years. Therefore, it follows that if conditions set out in section 11(3) are not fulfilled the whole of the accumulated income shall become the deemed income of the assessee under section 11(3). Therefore, in view of this, the argument that the deemed income under section 11(3) could only be the accumulated income relating to financial year 1972-73 equivalent to assessment year 1973-74 is not correct. 10. In view of the above, we hold that the revisionary order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act does not appear to be valid under law and therefore, it is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
-
1992 (10) TMI 122 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Charitable Purpose, Charitable Trust ... ... ... ... ..... e, the relevant income is found to be below the taxable limits which is Rs. 18,000 per year and, therefore, on that ground itself it is not taxable since it falls below the taxable limit. Further we hold that the proviso to section 164(2) does not apply since the assessee had substantially complied with the provisions of section 13(1)(d) and section 11(5)(iii) of the IT Act and part of the relevant income became taxable and became in excess under section 11 or section 12 not because the provisions of clause 13(1)(c) or (d) were contravened in which case only, the maximum marginal rate can be applied. In all other cases only ordinary rates could be applied. Therefore, since the claim for exemption under section 11 or section 12 is not by virtue of the fact that the provisions of section 13(1)(c) or (d) are contravened, the maximum marginal rate cannot be applied. We, therefore, fully allow the appeal and hold that there is no taxable income earned by the assessee in this year.
-
1992 (10) TMI 121 - ITAT DELHI-E
... ...
... ... ..... find it necessary to discuss the matter here once again. This ground, is, accordingly, rejected. 30. As regards ground No. 3, the Assessing Officer for the purpose of working out the disallowance under s. 37(3A) included selling commission amounting to Rs. 4,42,671 but on further appeal, the CIT(A) following the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Meera and Co. (1986) 24 TTJ (Chd) 44 (1986) 15 ITD 227 (Chd) deleted the same. 31. After hearing both the parties, we find no good ground to interfere with the decision of the first appellate authority, in as much as the matter now stands concluded also by the two decisions of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Motors (1991) 192 ITR 619 (Cal) and CIT vs. Sutlej Cotton Mills (1992) 194 ITR 66 (Cal). Respectfully following the same, the order of the CIT(A) is confirmed. 32. In the result, the assessee s appeal is partly allowed whereas the Revenue s appeal is dismissed.
-
1992 (10) TMI 120 - ITAT DELHI-E
... ...
... ... ..... and its economic life is/was over. On the contrary, the valuer has estimated the further life of the buildings at 25 years. The reversionary value of land is added on the assumption that economic life of the superstructure has come to an end or is likely to come to an end in near future which is not true in this case on the admitted facts. Thus, there is no justification for aforesaid presumption when property continues to remain in the occupation of the tenants protected under Rent Control Act and there is no reference to any order or instance of reverting back of land to owner in the valuation report or other material. We fully agree with Shri Chopra and hold that addition on account of reversionary value of land is not justified. Subject to the above observation, the value of different properties in all the years in appeals be taken as directed by the Bench of the Tribunal in their order dt.24th Aug., 1982. 12. In the result, the appeals are allowed in terms stated above.
-
1992 (10) TMI 119 - ITAT DELHI-E
Assessing Officer, Assessment Order, Cash Credits, Purchase And Sale, Rejection Of Accounts, Valuation Report
-
1992 (10) TMI 118 - ITAT DELHI-C
Assessing Officer, Orders Prejudicial To Interests, Penalty Proceedings, Share Income ... ... ... ... ..... the direction of the CIT, made under section 264 of the Act. 12. As far as the penalties for filing belated returns are concerned, we are of the opinion that the A. O. had proceeded according to law. This is so, in view of the clear words contained in section 271(1) of the Act, which indicate that A.O. in the course of any proceeding under the Act, if satisfied, that, the assessee would be attracting the provisions for the imposition of the penalty, he can initiate the proceedings for such penalty. The first appellate authority had misdirected himself by quashing the penalty order by stating that, section 155 is not available for the imposition of penalty. We therefore, set aside his order on the penalty for late filing of the return, for both the asst. years and direct him to consider them afresh on merits. 13. In the result, the revenue succeeds partly on the point of penalty for late filing of the return, but, fails on the issue about the penalty for concealment of income.
-
1992 (10) TMI 117 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... The decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd., according to him, did not apply to the facts of the case. 13. After examining the rival submissions, we are of the view that the issue pertaining to deduction on account of purchase tax would have to be re-examined in the light of the stand taken before us and that being that on payment basis the amount had been allowed as a deduction all along in the past. If that be so, then we see no reason why a consistent method adopted all along in the past should be disturbed especially when the Department is not disputing the deduction itself, but it is only the year which is in dispute. In this view of the matter, we set aside the order passed by the CIT(A) and restore the issue back to the file of the ITO for a decision de novo on merits by reference to the past record. He shall, however, do so after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 14. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1992 (10) TMI 116 - ITAT DELHI-A
... ...
... ... ..... nt year under appeal, could not be said to be unjustified. The observation of the IAC under s. 144B as observed by the Supreme Court in IAC vs. VIP Industries Ltd. would tantamount to fresh facts. We, therefore, of the view that the initiation of the reassessment proceedings are valid. 11. In so far as the merits are concerned, as per the details that are in the folder of the Revenue for asst. yr. 1977-78, pp. 22 to 26 containing the copies of the accounts of the parties indicating that the amounts having been received in the earlier years, the AO did not have any opportunity to examine as to whether the amounts have been brought forward in the earlier years or not. If the amounts are coming forward from the earlier years than the obvious conclusion is that the amounts could not been treated as unexplained cash credit of the year. The AO shall allow sufficient opportunity to the assessee. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly treated as allowed in part.
-
1992 (10) TMI 115 - ITAT CALCUTTA-D
Book Profits, Computation Of, Method Of Accounting, Change Of, Appellate Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... ances we have to uphold the disallowance for this year also. Depreciation on Diesel Generator Set 24. The Income-tax Officer noted that the assessee had received subsidy of Rs.1,50,800 from the Government of Jammu and Kashmir for the purpose of installing a Diesel Generator Set. She, therefore, reduced the cost of the asset by the amount of the subsidy for calculating the depreciation. This was confirmed on appeal. It is stated before us that the subsidy was a direct grant for the purchase of the Diesel Generator Set. In the circumstances, it is not possible for the assessee to avoid the reduction of the cost of the set by the amount or subsidy within the meaning of section 43(1) of the Act. The action of the Assessing Officer in this regard is confirmed. Payment made to Cricket Association of Bengal 25. The assessee did not press the ground relating to the claim for deduction of Rs.1 lakh paid to Cricket Association of Bengal. 26. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
............
|
