|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 217 Records
-
1993 (11) TMI 97 - ITAT DELHI-C
Valuation Of Assets, Immovable Property ... ... ... ... ..... 20 if remaining unpaid for more than 2 years. 10. The values as arrived in steps 2 through 9, should be aggregated, which would be the gross value. 11. The value as in step 10, should be given deduction for the share on L and DO charges, which is part of the cost of construction and but, for its payment, the building could not have been sold as commercial flats. 12. Further deduction may be allowed for the element of suits, litigation, interest etc., up to 10 of the value as in step No. 9 above. 13. The net amount so arrived after deducting the items in steps 10 and 11 from step 9, would be the value of the right of space of the assessee. The AO, is accordingly directed to recalculate the value of the space on the two valuation dates separately, as above. The assessee shall provide the information as above, to enable the AO to determine the value of the right of space for the valuation dates31-3-83and31-3-84respectively. In the result, the appeals are allowed in part as above
-
1993 (11) TMI 96 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... stion. 33. Sri Nair vehemently submitted that there was no reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. We have gone into reasons recorded for initiating action under s. 147 and they are as follows 8th Nov., 1980 The assessee has estimated the income for advance tax purpose for asst. yr. 1987-88 at Rs. 1,60,000. Considering the past years assessment records the assessee is likely to have taxable income. Therefore, there is reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax for asst. yr. 1987-88 has escaped assessment due to the failure of the assessee to file the return of income for 1987-88. We are satisfied that prima facie, the learned Assessing Officer had reason to believe that the assessee had assessable income and had not filed the return of income at the time of initiation of the proceedings under s. 147. Thus, there is no infirmity in the assessment proceedings. 34. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Revenue s appeal is dismissed.
-
1993 (11) TMI 95 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... the basis of the materials available before us. In our considered opinion, since out of the sum of Rs. 41 lakhs only Rs. 31,70,434 is found to have been distributed as per the records of the Revenue, it is reasonable to hold that the balance amount of Rs. 9,29,566 had been utilised for the impugned tax payments. To this extent, the addition is deleted. 9. As regards the addition of Rs. 2,50,000, it is seen that the reconstituted partnership firm came into existence on 4th day of March, 1985 and as per cl. 11 of the partnership deed, the books of accounts of the firm shall be closed for the first time on 31st March, 1986 and thereafter on 31st March of every year . Since the amount of Rs. 2,50,000 was credited in the books of the firm on 17th March, 1985 it fell in the previous year beginning from 4th March, 1985 and ending on 31st March, 1986 the same was rightly assessed in the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1986-87. 10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1993 (11) TMI 94 - ITAT COCHIN
Penalty, Penalty For Late Filing Of Return ... ... ... ... ..... the income on the same basis for this assessment year also in the absence of non-availability of books of accounts. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the assessee could have estimated its income well in advance. 9. This apart in the case of Polakulath Wines in which Shri Narayanan was the managing partner where the return was filed only on 28-9-1988 (as against the due date of 31-7-1986) penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(a) were initiated and dropped. Even in the case of the very assessee for the very assessment year on the plea that the books were lost or misplaced or not traceable on a petition under section 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for waiver of interest, the Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax had waived the interest to the extent of 50 . All these would go to strengthen our view additionally that the assessee had reasonable cause for late filing of the return. Therefore, we cancel the penalty. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
1993 (11) TMI 93 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Method Of Accounting, Change Of ... ... ... ... ..... hange on the simple allegation that the payments were not coming promptly and regularly from the principal, namely, Majestic Auto Ltd. It would not, therefore, help the assessee. There is nothing on record to establish that certain arrears were due against Majestic Auto Ltd. and, therefore, it was to the detriment to the assessee that income on accrual basis had been shown in the past but income never reached the assessee s hands. We, therefore, find that the claim regarding right of change in the system of accounting cannot be sustained. It appears that the assessee has chosen part of source to be covered under the actual receipt system and the remaining part of source still continues to be under accrual system. Looking to the entire facts of the case, we are of the view that the addition has been rightly sustained by the ld. first appellate authority. Therefore, ground No. 1 fails and is rejected. 15. to 22. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.
-
1993 (11) TMI 92 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Exemptions, Business Expenditure, Allowable As ... ... ... ... ..... inst each other, in the assessment year 1982-83. That order was upheld by the Tribunal by observing that the CIT (A) has impliedly treated interest income as business income and then only allowed the adjustment of interest paid therefrom. We find that the revenue authorities have already taken a view as regards commencement of business and interest income. Therefore, we find that the assessee-corporation has already commenced business and the expenditure as well as income are to be treated as business expenditure and business income. The amount of interest, shown as payable, is also to be adjusted/set off against interest income. In other words, we can say that the interest payable has to be treated as a valid deduction. The assessee has brought the interest income to the development expenditure account and has also carried payable interest to that account. Therefore, all the three grounds are decided in favour of the assessee. 16. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1993 (11) TMI 91 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Dissolution Of Firm, Dissolved Firm, Partnership Deed ... ... ... ... ..... hat in the instant case, there was no dissolution of the partnership when Shri Moti Lal Jain died on 11-6-1980. No separate dissolution deed was drawn up. The business of the partnership firm continued as before except that two new partners who were legal heirs of the deceased partner were taken as partners and there was a slight change in the shares of two other partners. The assessee also drew a consolidated trading account which shows that the conduct of the partners was also to treat it as a mere change in the constitution and not to treat the firm as a dissolved firm. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation in saying that the Assessing Officer was correct in making one composite assessment for both the periods. We hold accordingly and reverse the order of the first appellate authority on this point and restore that of the Assessing Officer. 12 to 18. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues .
-
1993 (11) TMI 90 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Original Assessment, Valuation Officer, Valuation Report
-
1993 (11) TMI 89 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
Deemed Gift, Assessee ... ... ... ... ..... was let out to a company fully owned by the daughter of the Managing Director of the assessee-company, therefore, assume its relevance. The intent and purpose of this section is to discourage the tax avoidance. If the assessee proves the bona fide of the transaction, there is no reason to invoke section 4. But unfortunately, in this case, we find that bona fide has not been proved. It is obvious that the transaction was effected with a view to avoid tax liability. We have considered the agreements having regard to the investment made in the flats and the rent fixed coupled with the fact of closeness of kinship with the Managing Director of the assessee-company and the tenant, subsequently, the transferee of the premises. It can only be said that this was only a subterfuge. In our opinion, the case of the assessee clearly falls within the ken of section 4 of the Gift-tax Act. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order. 11. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.
-
1993 (11) TMI 88 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
Assessment Year, Held By Assessee, Net Wealth ... ... ... ... ..... theory of paper wealth. The latest addition to the property is in the field of intellectual property . Perhaps, as now it stands this right to intellectual property is the most valuable and precious right. 12. In the preceding para, we have seen that the word property has been widened so as to include even non-transferable assets. As far as the membership right of the Stock Exchange is concerned, it can be sold and the consideration received can be utilised in the manner prescribed in Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations. Under these circumstances the stand of the assessee that membership cannot be treated as a property under section 2(e) cannot be accepted. It may be mentioned that before the CWT (Appeals) the assessee did not place any material. 13. For the reasons stated in the preceding para, we are of the view that the appeal by the assessee is without merit. We confirm the exparte order of the CWT (Appeals). 14. In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed.
-
1993 (11) TMI 87 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
Appellate Authority, Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Bona Fide, Change In Method ... ... ... ... ..... including the depreciation is taken into account and compared with the depreciation provided for the lesser of the two worked out to Rs. 7.26 lakhs and Rs. 20.47 lakhs for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88 which together with the amount of adjustment allowed by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 585.83 lakhs amounts to Rs. 613.56 lakhs. In other words, the assessee would get further adjustment and set off Rs. 27.73 lakhs in respect of assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88. Therefore, the correct amount of adjustment required to be made in terms of clause (iv) works out to the amount claimed by the assessee, namely, Rs. 613.56 lakhs which should be adjusted against the book profits. In this view of the matter, therefore, there is force in the various contentions raised on behalf of the assessee and the rejoinder given by the learned counsel for the assessee which are valid. 12. Accordingly, ground Nos. (1), (1.1) and the additional ground No. 1 taken before us are disposed of.
-
1993 (11) TMI 86 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
Capital Gains, Computation Of ... ... ... ... ..... ares sold being bonus shares, no capital gains arose on the transfer of an asset for which no cost of acquisition could be ascribed. The CIT (Appeals) rejected the claim and his decision was upheld by the Tribunal. However, the learned counsel for the assessee sought to distinguish the facts of the present case inasmuch as the cost of acquisition of bonus shares had been calculated on the basis of fair market value on, 1-4-1974 in the return of income. That may be the position in the return of income, but we have held above that the cost of acquisition of the bonus shares has to be ascertained with respect to the cost of original shares being spread over the original shares and the bonus shares collectively. Thus, the facts are not distinguishable and, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal, we reject the cross objections filed by the assessee. 24. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the cross objections stand dismissed.
-
1993 (11) TMI 85 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
Capital Gains, Computation Of ... ... ... ... ..... ares sold being bonus shares, no capital gains arose on the transfer of an asset for which no cost of acquisition could be ascribed. The CIT (Appeals) rejected the claim and his decision was upheld by the Tribunal. However, the learned counsel for the assessee sought to distinguish the facts of the present case inasmuch as the cost of acquisition of bonus shares had been calculated on the basis of fair market value on, 1-4-1974 in the return of income. That may be the position in the return of income, but we have held above that the cost of acquisition of the bonus shares has to be ascertained with respect to the cost of original shares being spread over the original shares and the bonus shares collectively. Thus, the facts are not distinguishable and, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal, we reject the cross objections filed by the assessee. 24. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the cross objections stand dismissed.
-
1993 (11) TMI 84 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, High Court ... ... ... ... ..... summarily ignored. The details of the payment as well as repayment were given in the affidavit and the designation of the Assessing Officer as well as the Permanent Account Number of the creditor were also supplied. The Tribunal has even granted a reference under section 256(1) of the Act. In the circumstances, there is no question of holding that the assessee s explanation has been found to be false. 25. Coming to the sum of Rs. 11,001, only one part of the assessee s explanation was found to be false, i.e., the assessee s claim that the cash was not found at the assessee s premises. However, the second part of the explanation that the assessee received the sum from another party was disbelieved but was not found to be false. 26. In view of the above, we hold that the case does not fall under clause (A), of Explanation 1, to section 271(1)(c) and, therefore, direct that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act should be cancelled. 27. The assessee s appeal is allowed.
-
1993 (11) TMI 83 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
Method Of Accounting, Assessee-Company ... ... ... ... ..... compulsory basis of computation unless the profits cannot properly be deduced therefrom. The Departmental Representative fairly admitted that the method followed by the assessee was also a recognised one and, indeed, on this aspect there cannot be dispute and that is why the Assessing Officer not only in assessment year 1982-83 but also in subsequent two years, found himself duty-bound to compute the profits on the basis of method of accounting adopted by the assessee. When the assessments are made on certain settled principles, we find no reason why assessments should be revised. We, therefore, hold that assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 was not in accordance with law, on facts of the case and, therefore, we cancel the order passed under section 263 and restore the assessments framed by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly all the consequent proceedings and the orders arising therefrom shall be treated as infructuous. 6. In the result, both the appeals are allowed.
-
1993 (11) TMI 82 - ITAT BANGALORE
Valuation Of Assets, Immovable Property ... ... ... ... ..... 77-78 to 1980-81 were argued and he, very rightly, acceded to the submission. 28. The Ceiling Act has reduced the holding to mere empty ownership. The Planning Report of the Bangalore Development Authority has, further, put a gloss on the powers of the assessee as owner. Disregarding these underlying realities he cannot value the asset in a sweeping-up manner and that would be opposed to all canons of justice. The true index is to value on the basis of compensation awardable upon acquisition. 29. For the discussion we have made, we direct that the vacant land in the Bangalore palace be valued at Rs. 2 lakhs for each of the assessment years from 1977-78- to 1985-86. We reverse the order of the CIT(A) dated 9-1-1990 and direct the Wealth-tax Officer to re-compute the net taxable wealth accordingly. We affirm the order of the CIT(A) dated 31-7-1990 and 14-9-1980. 30. Appeals for 1981-82 to 1983-84 are allowed. Appeals for 1979-80 to 1980-81 and 1984-85 and 1985-86 are dismissed.
-
1993 (11) TMI 81 - ITAT BANGALORE
Depreciation, Rate Of Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... Federation Ltd. s case also does not seem to help him. We agree with his argument that higher rate of depreciation has been provided in the Schedule for the purpose of giving incentive to certain class of transport operators. But that incentive has been intended to be allowed to transport operators engaged in the business of completely hiring out their vehicles and not to owners of ordinary buses plying on routes. Therefore, the decision of the Supreme Court as relied upon by the assessee s counsel would also go to support our finding only. 7. Finally we conclude that the buses owned by the assessee in the instant case are entitled to the lower rate of depreciation at 33 1/3 per cent only and not to the higher rate of depreciation at 50 per cent. We therefore reverse the decision of the DCIT (Appeals) and restore that of the ITO and direct that depreciation be allowed on the buses at the lower rate only as mentioned above. 8. In the result, the departmental appeal is allowed.
-
1993 (11) TMI 80 - ITAT BANGALORE
Income, Assessable As ... ... ... ... ..... is necessary for the Department to ascertain how and at what point of time did the assessee become entitled to the subsidy and started getting an enforceable right in the matter of receiving the subsidy, or in other words, when did the subsidy amount actually become payable to the assessee. Since there are no proper evidences to show that the subsidy amount actually became payable to the assessee in this year, we would like to knock down the addition in the income of the assessee for this year with a direction to the Assessing Officer to find out at what point of time the subsidy amount became actually payable to the assessee and to include the actual amount of subsidy granted or to be granted by the Government in the year covering that point of time. Finally, we delete the addition by reversing the orders of the lower authorities, with however, the directions as given above. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partially allowed to the abovementioned extent.
-
1993 (11) TMI 79 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... gh Court judgment therefore comes out loud and clear and whether there is any business income or not the unabsorbed depreciation has to be allowed against any other head. Respectfully following the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court we hold that the assessee is entitled to set off of unabsorbed depreciation against the rental income. This ground accordingly succeeds. 12. In grounds No. 4, 5 and 6 it has been contended that the learned CIT(A) has erred in not dealing with Ground No. 3 (relating to not granting deduction of expenses incurred by the appellant company) Ground No. 7 (relating to charge of interest under s. 139 of the Act) ground No. 8 (relating to charge of interest under s. 217 of the Act). We find that while disposing of the appeal the learned CIT(A) has not dealt with the above grounds. She is accordingly directed to adjudicate upon the same. For this purpose the matter is restored back to her file. 13. In the result all the appeals are allowed in part.
-
1993 (11) TMI 78 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Business Income, Chargeable As ... ... ... ... ..... , it has been mentioned that the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee-company except Rs. 7,200 incurred on the maintenance of a guest house should be allowed. This point has been dealt with by the CIT(A) in para 6 of his order. The CIT(A) has observed that since it has been held that the assessee still continues to carry on the same business all the expenses other than those not specifically allowable under the provisions of Income-tax Act should be allowed as deduction. He, however, observed that rent for guest house of Rs. 7,200 has to be disallowed under section 37(4). 15. We have already confirmed the finding given by the CIT(A) holding that the assessee still continues to carry on the same business. Therefore, the direction given by him to allow all expenses which are allowable under the provisions of law is perfectly valid and requires no interference. 16. Both the appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.
....
|
