|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 304 Records
-
1993 (3) TMI 180 - ITAT MADRAS-B
Compulsory Audit, Export Business, Nature Of Income, Profit On Sale, Trading Receipt ... ... ... ... ..... he assessee had resulted in a loss. The assessee s Profit and Loss Account for the year ending on 31-3-1989, no doubt, shows a pre-tax profit of Rs. 8,11,360. But this is mainly due to aggregate gross income of Rs. 9,37,693 under the four heads referred to supra. Given the true scheme of section 80HHC, there is no call to treat the said aggregate sum as forming part of the assessee s turnover. The result is that even under section 80HHC(3)(b), the deduction admissible to the assessee is nil. 20. Before taking leave of this case, we may add that, in the first round of litigation, the Tribunal has held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80HHC in principle. In the second round of the proceedings, we hold that, the exports made by the assessee having resulted in a loss, the deduction admissible to the assessee under section 80HHC is nil. 21. In view of the foregoing, therefore, we decline to interfere in the matter. 22. In the result, the appeal is dismissed
-
1993 (3) TMI 179 - ITAT MADRAS-B
Export Business, Foreign Enterprise, Profits And Gains Of Business ... ... ... ... ..... held that the assessee is getting double or multiple benefit. What is required to be seen is whether the assessee satisfies the pre-conditions prescribed under various sections of Chapter VI-A. If the assessee satisfies those conditions, then the benefit cannot be denied. Secondly, Chapter VI-A, or for that matter the Income-tax Act, does not contain any provision stipulating that the assessee cannot get deductions in respect of the same receipt under more than one section of Chapter VI-A. The only limitation that has been incorporated in Chapter VI-A is section 80A(2) which says that the aggregate amount of deductions under Chapter VI-A shall not, in any case, exceed the gross total income of the assessee as defined in section 80B(5) . 12. We, therefore, allow the assessee s claim and direct the Assessing Officer to re-compute the deductions admissible to the assessee under section 80-I of the Act. 13 to 23. These paras are not reproduced here, as they involve minor issues.
-
1993 (3) TMI 174 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... s which have been referred to by the learned counsel for the assessee which lay down the principle to the effect that merely surrender of income cannot be a basis for imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) and it is for the Assessing Officer to prove that it was the taxable income of the assessee which he had concealed and this has to be done not merely on the basis of the findings or observations given in the assessment order but on the basis of some specific evidence. 13. Taking all these factors into account and the ratio of decisions cited by the learned counsel for the assessee we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of this case the assessee cannot be said to have either concealed the particulars of his income or to have filed inaccurate particulars of his income which would render him liable for penalty under s. 271(1)(c). The penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer is, therefore, directed to be deleted. 14. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
1993 (3) TMI 172 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... some firm, would not disentitle the assessee from writing off the debt as bad. In any case there is always a provision that if and when the debt is realised by the assessee it may be assessed as the income of the relevant assessment year. In these circumstances the disallowance of Rs. 37,616 is directed to be deleted. 4. Next objection of the assessee is against charging of interest under ss. 139(8), 215 and 216. It was argued by the learned counsel for the assessee that on the final assessment inspite of the disallowance having been made, finally an amount of Rs. 1,690 was found refundable to the assessee and hence no interest under ss. 139(8), 215 and 216 is chargeable. We agree with the contentions of the learned counsel and find that it is covered by the ratio of decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganesh Dass Sreeram vs. ITO (1987) 66 CTR (SC) 135 (1988) 169 ITR 221 (SC). It is, therefore, directed to be deleted. 5. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed.
-
1993 (3) TMI 170 - ITAT JAIPUR
Penalty For Concealment, Raw Material ... ... ... ... ..... e the assessee has been able to give a reasonable explanation for fall in its profits as compared to last year and although that explanation was not fully accepted by the Tribunal, the very fact that the learned CIT(A) had accepted it and even the Tribunal, the very fact that the learned CIT(A) had accepted it and even the Tribunal has restored only partial additions would mean that the explanation given by the assessee was a plausible and bonafide explanation and hence in our opinion, the learned CIT(A) was justified in taking the view that where an addition has been restored even by the Tribunal on an estimated basis and the assessee has given a plausible and bonafide explanation for its having filed a return of income on the basis of its books of account in which no specific defects could be pointed out, the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified. 9. Accordingly we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A). The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed
-
1993 (3) TMI 169 - ITAT JAIPUR
Appellate Authority, Assessing Officer, Late Filing, Mistake Apparent From Record, Regular Assessment
-
1993 (3) TMI 168 - ITAT JAIPUR
Assessment Order, Interest Payable By Assessee, Original Assessment, Retrospective Amendment, Supreme Court, Total Income
-
1993 (3) TMI 167 - ITAT JAIPUR
Profits And Gains, Trading In Alcoholic Liquor, Forest Produce, Etc. ... ... ... ... ..... nder section 44AC(3) and modify his assessment order accordingly. Ground nos. 1 and 2(a), 2(b) and 2(c) are decided in that manner. (2) Disallowance of Rs. 3000 9. An addition of Rs. 3,000 in the sales-tax paid timber account was made on the ground that stock register and quantitative details were not maintained and the g.p. rate declared in this account was also low. 10. Mr. Singhvi urged that purchases and sales were fully vouched and the same g.p. could not have been maintained for all the years. I, however, find that in the sale bills complete details of goods sold i.e., size, kind, width etc. had not been given and in the absence of daily stock register and quantitative details the sales bills as they were, could not have been of much help in arrivtng at correct profit of the business and correct valuation of the closing stock. The ITO thus had reasons to make addition of Rs. 3000 in this account. The addition is confirmed. 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed
-
1993 (3) TMI 166 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... te specified is only directory. The purpose of the audit report, as prescribed under s. 44AB, is detailed in CBDT Circular No. 1387 of 6th July, 1984 i.e. broadly to ensure that the books of accounts are properly maintained and audit thereof helps the tax administration. Further, sticking to the specified date is not in the hands of the assessee alone since he is required to get his accounts audited from an accountant as specified in s. 44AB. Therefore, the date specified in s. 44AB need to be construed only as obligatory and not mandatory. There is no undue delay either in getting the accounts audited on the part of the assessee. Further, the CIT(A) has recorded a finding of fact that the assessee was possessed of a reasonable cause preventing him from getting his accounts audited within the specified date under s. 44AB. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned CIT(A) took the correct view and rightly cancelled the penalty. 3. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
-
1993 (3) TMI 165 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... tary principles of Criminal Law will apply. 3. Even on merit, there is no substance in levy of penalty. It is explained by the assessee that it could not visualise that its income would be more than Rs. 1.75 lacs at which the estimate was revised. The accounting period of the assessee ended on Diwali in 1979. The statement was revised on 15th Dec., 1979. Thus, about a month or so was available to the assessee, by which time its accounts were not finalised. It is further explained by the counsel for the assessee that the assessee had to receive commission from the supplier of Bidi and had also to pay commission to the persons who had purchased Bidi from it. The accounts of commission were not finalised and, therefore, the correct income could not be ascertained, nonetheloss, the learned counsel contended that the estimate of income at Rs. 1.75 lacs was just and proper. This explanation is acceptable. The penalty of Rs. 1,500 is deleted. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1993 (3) TMI 164 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... ve earlier assessment years. On appeal, the CIT(A) found that Rs. 91,302 included penalty of Rs. 46,900, which the assessee could not claim as a deduction. He further directed the Assessing Officer to verify from the cash records, and in case any of the liabilities were allowed in the past on accrual basis, no claim in respect thereof be allowed and in case no such claim was allowed in the past on accrual basis that much amount be allowed as a deduction. 14. Learned representatives of the parties are heard. We find no flaw in the order of the CIT(A). This ground of objection is dismissed. 15. The last ground of objection as to the disallowance of claim of deduction of Rs. 26,926 being the amount of penalty for delay in payment of provident fund is without merit. This claim of deduction is not allowable. In this connection, reference may be made to Suneet a Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT (1986) 53 CTR (MP) 445 (1986) 162 ITR 883 (MP). 16. In the result the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1993 (3) TMI 163 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... was a good debt, would not have come in to swell the profits. A debt in such cases is an outstanding which if recovered would have swelled the profits. In this connection, the observations in the case of CIT vs. T. Veerabhadm Rao K. Koteswaia Rao and Co. referred to by the learned counsel for the assessee are fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. 12. In view of the above discussion, there is no manner of doubt that the said-amount was a proper debt. The assessee is entitled to deduction of Rs. 38,35,962. It is directed to be allowed as a deduction. 13. The next ground of objection of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 5,000 out of car and telephone expenses. 14. The details of these expenses have not been furnished before us. We find no merit in this ground of objection. 15. In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Department is dismissed. The cross objection of the assessee stands allowed.
-
1993 (3) TMI 162 - ITAT INDORE
Fixed Deposit, Interest Income, Long-term Capital Gains, Previous Year ... ... ... ... ..... The assessee went in appeal before the CIT (A), who examined this issue in detail and allowed the relief of Rs. 1,040 only in respect of interest and bank charges and disallowed the balance of Rs. 31,960. 12. We have been taken through the order of the CIT(A) by the ld. representatives of the parties. We find no flaw therein. The disallowance of Rs. 31,960 is sustained. 13. Ground No. (iv) After having heard the ld. representatives of the parties as to the disallowance of 1/4th of the expenses and depreciation on maintenance of car, we find that the same is reasonable and does not call for any interference. 14. Ground No. (v) Disallowance of Rs. 1,000 out of premises maintenance expenses sustained by the CIT (A) does not call for any interference, since no details of the same have been furnished. The disallowance of Rs. 1,000 is, therefore, sustained. 15. In the result, the I. T. A. No. 294/Ind./91 is dismissed as infructuous and the I. T. A. No. 410/Ind./92 is partly allowed
-
1993 (3) TMI 161 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
Orders Prejudicial To Interests, Valuer's Report ... ... ... ... ..... e said report of the Valuation Officer cannot be considered to be forming part of record which the Commissioner is entitled to examine to invoke jurisdiction under section 263, since the same does not relate to any proceeding under the IT Act. We further agree with his contention that for invoking powers under section 131, a valid proceeding should be pending before the ITO. Having regard to all the above, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to invoke his powers under section 263 since the departmental Valuer s report does not form part of the record within the meaning of Explanation (b) to section 263 and it is non est in the eye of law. Such a non est report cannot be regarded as part of the assessment proceeding since no assessment proceedings were pending by the date of either reference or the receipt of the departmental valuer s report. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the revisionary order of the Commissioner is set aside
-
1993 (3) TMI 160 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Business Income, Cinema Theatre, Income From Other Sources, Lease Rent ... ... ... ... ..... f the assessee is that in the wealth-tax assessment, the status of the lessors was found to be that of A.O. P. In support of that contention Shri D. Manmohan filed an order of the Tribunal dated 14-101986 passed in W.T.A. Nos. 410 to 414/Hyd/85 which, inter alia, includes the order for assessment year 1984-85 also. A reading of the order would disclose that the agreed premise on which the parties proceeded before them was that Kumari Picture Palace is an association of persons. In answer to the first ground we have already held that the lease amount should be assessed under the head business and not under the head other sources . Business can be carried on by A. O.P. as well as by a firm etc. Simply because the status of the assessee viz., Kumar Picture Palace was held to be that of AOP does not have any material effect on any other issue decided in this appeal. We hold accordingly in this appeal on this issue. 12. In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed in part
-
1993 (3) TMI 159 - ITAT DELHI-E
Assessment Order, Rate Of Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... hat such enhancement was also given effect to by the Department. 7. Thus, under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the DLY/DLZ cars and coaches can be given the higher rate of depreciation at 40 . 8. As far as the pick-up-van is concerned, it is not known clearly as to whether it is serving the same purpose as the said cars do by carrying passengers as it gives an impression that such vans may be intended for use otherwise than carrying passengers, say, like carrying luggage, etc. Hence, as far as the pick-up vans are concerned, we are remitting this issue to the Assessing Officer himself to decide this aspect of the issue de novo after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee for ascertaining the nature of the pick-up van so that its purpose could be known clearly for determination of the percentage of depreciation accordingly. 9. Thus, we set aside the revisionary order impugned before us. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly
-
1993 (3) TMI 158 - ITAT DELHI-D
Assessing Officer, Assessment Proceedings, Bona Fide, Penalty Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... him to do and gave a bona fide explanation. His explanation in part relating to agreement and advancement of funds to the extent of Rs. 20,000 has already been accepted. He also put Shri Mukesh Kumar in the hands of the Assessing Officer to confirm the investment. The Assessing Officer ultimately found certain holes in the statement which as discussed above were not got clarified at the appropriate time. Even if one agrees with the conclusion of the Assessing Officer that from the statement of Shri Mukesh Kumar saving and investment of Rs. 27,000 is not explained, it is still a question mark whether source of Rs. 27,000 was not withheld by Shri Mukesh Kumar in his own interest. Thus case is fully covered by proviso to Explanation 1 mentioned above. On totality of facts and circumstances and for reasons given above I hold that present is not a fit case for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act. I cancel the same. In the result, assessee s appeal is allowed
-
1993 (3) TMI 157 - ITAT DELHI-D
Assessing Officer, Cash System, Mercantile System, Previous Year, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... accorded by the Assessing Officer. The learned Departmental Representative had placed reliance on the decision of Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Prajatantra Prachar Samiti where it was held that the assessee was prohibited from adopting regularly one method of accounting for his own purpose and yet another method of accounting for Income-tax purposes. Mr. Vaish did not controvert this principle by showing how the decision of Cuttack Bench was not applicable to the facts of the case. Decision ofPunjaband Haryana High Court in case of Salig Ram Kanhaya Lal pressed into service was totally on different point. In that case the assessee who maintained books on accrual method had received decretal amount, but the decree passed byLower Courtwas subject matter of further appeal and it was held that the amount could not be said to have accrued to the assessee. But such is not the case here. The controversy is entirely different. 6. In the result the appeal is dismissed.
-
1993 (3) TMI 156 - ITAT DELHI-C
Appellate Tribunal, Power To Rectify Mistakes ... ... ... ... ..... e assessment year under appeal, which accounting year is from 1-7-1979 to 30-6-1980, has not been challenged by the assessee, as an incorrect observation or as wrong on facts and to this extent, the CIT (Appeals), could not have allowed relief under section 80J of the Act, to the assessee-company. Moreover, it is not the case of the assessee that, it is not manufacturing the article specified in the Eleventh Schedule or that, it had commenced production prior to1-4-1979. Therefore, we have to reverse the order of CIT (Appeals) on the grant of deduction under section 80J of the Act on Glost Kiln No. 4. The deduction allowed in respect of the other units, in our view, is proper and in accordance with the law and the same is upheld. The Assessing Officer, is accordingly directed to allow deduction under section 80J on the Glost Kiln No. 2 and No. 3 and withdraw the deduction permitted on the Glost Kiln No. 4. 8. In the result, we allow this miscellaneous petition of the revenue.
-
1993 (3) TMI 155 - ITAT DELHI-C
Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... from the donor, whereby it had been specifically indicated that a sum of Rs. 60,000 was to be treated as Corpus Donation. A copy of the said certificate however has not been placed on our record. As rightly contended by the Departmental Representative, the donor has to state in express terms as and when a donation is given towards the Corpus Fund and, inasmuch as this intention has not been so indicated, we set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the issue to his file for a decision de novo in accordance with the provisions of law and in the light of the view that we have taken in the common ground, whereby exemption allowed under section 10(22) by the first appellate authority has been withdrawn and the issue pertaining to claim under section 11 has been restored to the file of the first appellate authority. This ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 35. In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes
............
|
