|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 252 Records
-
1995 (4) TMI 120 - ITAT PATNA
Assessing Officer, Revised Return, Set On, Time Limit For Completion ... ... ... ... ..... be preferred to the strict literal construction. Where the plain literal interpretation of a statutory provision produces a manifestly unjust result which could never have been intended by the Legislature, the Court might modify the language used by the Lesiglature so as to achieve the intention of the Legislature and produce a rational result. In the case of C. W.S. (India) Ltd., it is observed as under --- Literal construction may be the general rule in construing taxing enactments, but that does not mean that it should be adopted even if it leads to a discriminatory or incongruous result. When a literal interpretation leads to an absurd or unintended result, the language of the statute can be modified to accord with the intention of Parliament and to avoid absurdity. 10. We, therefore, for the reasons given above unhsitatingly reverse the view taken by the A/C and hold that the assessment is not time-barred by limitation. 11. In the result, the revenue s appeal is allowed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 118 - ITAT MADRAS-D
Annual Income, Annual Value, Income Tax, Net Wealth, Wealth Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... at the interest in question is one that is available to the assessee--HUF for a period not exceeding six years from the date the interest vests in it. In this connection we consider there is considerable force. In the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee to the effect that section 2(e)(v) does not talk of any interest in property where the interest is available to an assessee for a period or periods not exceeding six years from the date the interest vests in the assessee. In view of the foregoing, therefore, even on the assumption that the Potu Mirasi right is property within the meaning of section 2(e) of the WT Act, it cannot be included in the net wealth of the assessee-family because of the specific provisions of section 2(e)(v) of the Act. 57. In view of the foregoing, therefore, we hold that the lower authorities were not justified in bringing to charge the right in question in the hands of the assessee. 58. In the result, the assessee s appeals are allowed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 116 - ITAT MADRAS-B
Deduction In Respect, Previous Year, Time Barred Debt, Trading Liability ... ... ... ... ..... t, the liability somehow still subsisted. For a fact, having regard to the significant fact that the assessee had refused to pay the sum in question to the Bombay concern because the goods supplied to it by that concern were defective, we fail to see how any extraordinary circumstance could at all exist in this case. In view of the foregoing, therefore, we hold that the lower authorities were justified in invoking the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act and in bringing to charge on that basis the sum of Rs. 2,33,357. 42. In the circumstances we dismiss all the related grounds. 43. Before taking leave of the matter, we may state that we do not consider it necessary to notice the Bombay case of Protos Engineer Co. P. Ltd. because on facts that decision turned on the provisions of section 28(iv) of the Act. In the case before us, however, the provisions of section 41(1) are clearly applicable. 44. In the result, the assessee s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes
-
1995 (4) TMI 115 - ITAT MADRAS-B
Agreement For Avoidance, Chargeable Profits, Income Tax, Surtax Assessment, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... unt DTA relief 55,01,270 Surtax -do- 11,95,295 Total Indian tax 66,96,565 Less DTA relief 3,79,459 --------- Net tax payable 63,17,106 --------- Calculation No. II Income-tax net of DTA relief 51,21,811 Surtax 11,95,295 --------- Tax payable by the assessee net of DTA relief 63,17,106 --------- 20. It will be seen from the foregoing that the only distortion that had crept into the picture owes its origin to the failure on the part of the Assessing Officer to apply the provisions of Rule 2(ii) of the First Schedule of the C.P.S.T. Act. Once that distortion is rectified, the DTA relief available to the assessee under the Agreement in question is not in any way reduced. 21. In view of the foregoing, therefore, we hold first that the chargeable profits of the assessee is Rs. 52,23,384 and secondly that the surtax payable by the assessee is Rs. 11,95,295. We direct the Assessing Officer to amend the surtax assessment accordingly. 22. In the result, the assessee s appeal is allowed
-
1995 (4) TMI 114 - ITAT MADRAS-B
Processing Of Goods ... ... ... ... ..... is involved. If the same technique could also be utilised in ship building industry, then it would be regarded as manufacturing or processing of goods. The decision of the Tribunal cited also supports the claim that the information obtained by the assessee has been used for the purposes of business. Insofar as machinery parts are manufactured and fitted in the ships in the process of repairing the test would be satisfied. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances stated above, the conclusion that arises is that the assessee has obtained know-how for purposes of its business by paying lump sum consideration and, therefore, the claim of the assessee falls within the mischief of section 35AB applicable to assessment year 1986-87. The decisions of the Tribunal relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee are not applicable. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the CIT (Appeals) and reject the grounds taken by the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 108 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... g this long period but the assessee was always assessed in the status of Shri Ram Kalyan Individual . Even after adoption of Shri Pukhraj in 1980 by the two members of assessee-HUF, the assessee-HUF was assessed to income-tax as HUF(NS). That being the treatment given to the assessee-HUF by the Department itself over the years, it was for the AO to have pointed out and brought some material on record to show that the position in the year under consideration was dissimilar to that in earlier or subsequent years. Unfortunately no attempt in that direction was made by him. Therefore, he was not fully justified to have disturbed the long settled position between the parties. The learned Dy. Commissioner (A) has restored the settled position of the assessee vis-a-vis the Department and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case we do not feel inclined to unsettle the position between the parties once again. 25. In the result, both the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 106 - ITAT JAIPUR
Assessing Officer, Partner From Firm, Rectification Of Mistakes, Share Income ... ... ... ... ..... t is not established on record that the Assessing Officer had ever made any assessment in assessment year 1972-73 in the case of either of the two appellants. Since no assessment under section 143(1)/143(3) or 144 is proved to have been made in the case of either of the two appellants, the Assessing Officer could not have made one with the help of section 155 of the Act. Section 155 by itself was not a charging section but a machinery section which could have been brought into play when there would have been in existence an already completed assessment. Since there were no completed assessments, the machinery section, which simply aims at amending an already existing order, could not have conferred jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer to make an assessment under section 143(1) and cast pecuniary tax liability upon the appellants. The order made by him and upheld by the DC (Appeals) are totally bad in law and are hereby quashed. 7. In the result both the appeals are allowed
-
1995 (4) TMI 105 - ITAT JAIPUR
Assessing Officer ... ... ... ... ..... the appeal is as follows On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the entire disallowance made on account of depreciation on car for personal use. During the year,the assessee-company purchased a new car on 23-3-1989 and incurred petrol expenses of Rs. 200 which were claimed as deduction. The assessee also claimed depreciation of Rs. 45,222 thereon. Considering the fact that the car was purchased at the fag end of the year and personal use by Directors not being ruled out, the Assessing Officer disallowed half of the depreciation claimed. 22. At the out-set, such a disallowance in the case of a company is uncalled for, more so under the fact of the present case. In this case there is no evidence of personal use. An inference also cannot be drawn to that effect when the Director himself owns a personal car. Hence, the disallowance was unjustified. This ground of the assessee is upheld. 23. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 104 - ITAT JAIPUR
Accounting Year, Electricity Charges, Mercantile System ... ... ... ... ..... gical and, in our opinion, fits into the philosophy behind the provisions of section 43B. Some assessees used to provide for the liability and claim deduction, though actual payment may not have been made, thereby depriving the Government of its revenue from both the sides. When a statutory liability is not paid in time, interest would follow. This interest, is no doubt compensatory in nature. But the moot question is Is the Government really compensated by merely making a provision ? First, the assessee deprived the revenue by not making the statutory payment in time. Interest followed which was supposed to be a compensation. But the assessee claimed deduction thereof without actually compensating the Government. 14. Hence, the plea of the assessee cannot be accepted. In our opinion, the ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in allowing the deduction of Rs. 79,003 and hence direct the restoration of the order of the Assessing Officer on this issue. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed
-
1995 (4) TMI 103 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... sfer was not bona fide and that it was with a view to evade tax. An identical question came up for consideration before the Hyderabad Bench B of the Tribunal in the case of Kodisetty Suryanarayana. In that case, the assessee had sold a house site with a shed for a consideration of Rs. 70,000. The Registration authorities had fixed its value for the purposes of stamp duty and registration charges at Rs. 35,000. The AO held that the assessee transferred the property otherwise than for adequate consideration and computed the taxable gift by invoking the provisions of s. 4(1)(a) of the GT Act. On appeal, the Dy. CGT(A) confirmed the AO s action. However, in second appeal, the Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in invoking the provisions of s. 4(1)(a) of the GT Act. The facts of the cases before us, being identical, we follow with respect the decision and hold that there is no merit in the Revenue s appeals, which are rejected. 7. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 102 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... identical facts disallowance of Rs. 1,56,250 was made in the case of the assessee in the preceding asst. yr. 1987-88 and the disallowance was sustained in appeal by the CIT(A). However, in second appeal filed by the assessee the Tribunal deleted the addition vide order in ITA No. 115/Ind/89 dt. 14th June, 1993. A copy of the Tribunal s order appears at pp. 61-65 of the compilation. The reference application filed by the Revenue also stands rejected vide RA No. 109/Ind/93, dt. 18th March, 1994. Following the Tribunal s order and for the reasons stated above, we do not see any merit in this ground and accordingly reject the same. 16. The next ground taken by the Revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in reducing the addition out of miscellaneous expenses from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 2,000. In the assessee s appeal we have allowed further relief of Rs. 1,000 to the assessee and, therefore, this ground of the Revenue is also rejected. 17. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 101 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... Departmental Representative submitted that the Assessing Officer has given cogent reason for estimating the value of the vehicles in each of the three assessment years involved. According to him, the written down value of the cars does not reflect their market value. Since nothing has been brought on record by the assessee that the estimate made by the Assessing Officer is not fair and reasonable, the value of vehicles estimated by him deserves to be upheld. 10. We have considered the submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below. We find considerable force in the arguments of the learned Departmental Representative. The Assessing Officer has recorded reasons for estimating the value of vehicles in each of the three years and there being no material to indicate that such estimates are not fair and reasonable, we do not find any sound basis to interfere with the estimates made by the Assessing Officer. 11. In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 100 - ITAT INDORE
Assessing Officer, Assessment Proceedings, Income Escaping Assessment, Reassessment Proceedings
-
1995 (4) TMI 99 - ITAT DELHI-E
... ...
... ... ..... te of issue of goods receipt and concluded that the claim of pertained to earlier years. In appeal the learned CIT(A) examined the claim of the assessee and found that on facts and in the circumstances the claim made by the assessee was in accordance with the system of accounting as regularly followed by the assessee since the very inception or its business in 1976. The learned CIT(A) himself verified the claim of the assessee and found the same as fully allowable. He, thus, deleted the addition. The Revenue is aggrieved. The learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the AO while the learned authorised representative for the assessee supported the order of the learned CIT(A). 8.1 We have heard the learned representatives of the parties and have also perused the relevant record. We are of the view that the order of the learned CIT(A) does not suffer from any infirmity or fallacy in reasoning and, therefore, endorsing his finding, dismiss appeal of the Revenue.
-
1995 (4) TMI 98 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... ct position is required to be computed and no working was furnished to us during the hearing of appeal. Be that as it may, it is not possible for us to agree with learned CIT that deductions under the above provisions were wrongly allowed to the assessee. The view taken by the AO in the assessment order is supported by decisions of various High Courts noted above and cannot be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Accordingly, while agreeing in principle with the approach of learned CIT, in order for asst. yr. 1986-87 we set aside his order for asst. yr. 1987-88 to the extent it is inconsistent with our view expressed above. The matter is restored to the file of the AO to make fresh computation of deductions for both the assessment years under appeal in the light of our above observations and after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 11. In the result, assessee s appeals are partly allowed to the extent state above.
-
1995 (4) TMI 97 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... s of persons to whom the same were alleged to have been paid, that in the absence of the names and addresses of the recipients of the commission, it could not be said that the expenditure was laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business of the assessee and that, therefore, the assessee could not be said to have discharged the burden of proving that the expenses claimed to have been paid as secret commission were, in fact, paid. On a reference to the Hon ble Bombay High Court, it held that the Tribunal was right in disallowing the claim for deduction of selling expenses paid by way of secret commission. We feel that the issue in the present case is squarely covered by the said decision in (1982) 28 CTR (Bom) 186 (1982) 137 ITR 58 (Bom) and respectfully following that decision, we decline to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). 8. In the result, appeal in ITA No. 1616/Del/90 is allowed for statistical purposes and appeal in ITA No. 1617/Del/1990 is dismissed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 96 - ITAT DELHI-A
... ...
... ... ..... ack between 5th Feb., 1979, and 12th Feb., 1979, when again he advanced a sum of Rs. 6,000 on 1st March, 1979, but got it back on 22nd March, 1979, due to non-supply of goods by the assessee. The assessee has also filed statement of account of Budh Dev Prasad in its books of accounts corroborating the version of Budh Dev Prasad. 4. From a plain reading of facts and evidence on record, it is, thus, clear that the assessee has been able to substantiate its explanation. We cannot ignore the request made by the assessee to the AO to summon the creditors under s. 131, for which the assessee was ready to bear the expenses. Therefore, we are clearly of the view that penalty levied is not justified. We, thus, allow the assessee s appeal. 5. Having allowed the assessee s appeal we do not consider it necessary to deal with the alternative ground taken by the assessee that there being no positive income, no penalty could be levied. 6. In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above.
-
1995 (4) TMI 95 - ITAT DELHI
Assessing Officer, Foreign Currency, Foreign Enterprise, Foreign Exchange ... ... ... ... ..... he Reserve Bank of India on 4-10-1986 in the case of M/s. J.S. Boda and Co. Pvt. Ltd. the relevant documents placed at pages 152-153 of the Paper Book and the other relevant submissions made by the parties, and we feel that having regard to the spirit of the provisions for receipt of income in convertible foreign exchange in India, the assessee has met with the requirements of law as he is receiving the payment either directly from the foreign ship owners or through the banks after the deduction made by the Indian party in foreign currency is converted into Indian rupees. We, therefore, hold that the assessee has essentially met with the requirements stipulated in section 80-O for receipt of income in convertible foreign exchange. 7.3 In view of the aforesaid discussion in this paragraph we hold that the assessee has fulfilled all the relevant conditions stipulated in section 80-O and is entitled to deduction specified in section 80-O. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 94 - ITAT DELHI
Business Income, Interest In Property, Revenue Receipt, Trading Receipt ... ... ... ... ..... whereas clause (b) of section 209A provides for computation of advance-tax in the case of assessees not previously assessed. 101. In this case the last assessed income and the last returned income in respect of which tax under section 140A had been paid, whichever was higher, was a negative figure. On that basis, no advance tax was payable by the assessee. In the case of Patel Aluminium (P.) Ltd., the assessee had been assessed to nil income for the previous assessment year. It was held by their Lordships of the Bombay High Court that since the provisions of section 209(1) did not make the petitioner liable to payment of advance-tax, there was no obligation upon the assessee to send a statement referred to in section 209A(1). Applying the ratio laid down by their Lordships to the Bombay High Court referred to above, we hold that, assessee was not liable to interest under section 217. The same is accordingly deleted. 102. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed
-
1995 (4) TMI 93 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... hat There has been a return, though an invalid return, on the basis of which an assessment order under s. 143(3) of the Act has been made. This cannot be treated as best judgment assessment as if no return has been filed . Lastly, the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Royal Textiles wherein their Lordships went to the extent of saying that this decision of the Calcutta High Court lays down that even an invalid return or a return in a wrong form was a proper return 120 ITR 511 . Thus, the order of rectification under s. 154 upheld by the CIT(A) hinges on a highly controversial issue and in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court a debatable issue is not amenable to an order under s. 154 of the Act (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) . 11. For all these reasons, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and uphold the assessment. In the view we have taken, we do not go into the merits of other contentions argued before us. 12. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
............
|
