|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 252 Records
-
1995 (4) TMI 92 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... cern at almost the rate double the normal rate. The contention of the assessee that higher rates were paid to the sister concern because of the enormous waiting involved in loading rubber from purchasing centres was not found satisfactory to explain the increase in rates. Further, there were two debits in a sum of Rs. 9,625 and Rs. 8,775 towards the close of the accounting year. These two factors, according to the authorities, pointed to the collusive transactions between the assessee and the sister concern. Thus, an amount of Rs. 18,400 was disallowed and the disallowance was sustained. 5. Having heard rival submissions, we uphold the disallowance on the ground that the payment made to the sister concern was higher than the normal rates in similar cases. Though the genuineness of the payment cannot be questioned the reasonableness of the amount can be always be gone into. It is for this reason that we sustain the disallowance. 6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 91 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... r appeal. Similarly, in ITA No. 1630, the assessee has shown profit rate at 1.64 in this year, as against 1.91 in asst. yr. 1986-87. The assessee has been showing a consistent rate of profit in these years. Though it is correct that in the year under appeal, the book results have been rejected for the first time, but that alone would not make out a case of concealment of income. We are of the view, in the light of the above judicial pronouncements, that the penalty cannot be levied. It is a case where the books of account have been maintained, though the expenses were found to be not verifiable, in the absence of vouchers. That was the reason why book results were rejected and the rate of 10 adopted. It is not a case where any income was detected from the books or from any other material on record. In these circumstances, it is only suspicion on which the concealment charge is based. Therefore, both the penalties are deleted. 7. In the result, both the appeals stand allowed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 90 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... asis of the plain reading of s. 206 and also took note of the change in the provisions of s. 206 w.e.f. 27th Sept., 1991. The matter was, therefore, decided on the plain reading of the section and hence in our view common question No. 1 is not a referable question of law. The second question deals with the technical nature of the default and as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the assessee, whether the default is technical or venial or substantial is a question of fact. The Tribunal has found that the assessee had adhered to the spirit of the section and prepared the returns and submitted the same to the Postal authorities concerned. The mere non-delivery of such information or returns to the IT authorities has been rightly held to be a technical default. In that view of the matter, even common question No. 2, in our opinion, is not a referable question of law. We decline to refer the questions as sought for by the Revenue and dismiss the reference application.
-
1995 (4) TMI 89 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... , whereby a similar question was declined. Similar view was taken in RA No. 266/94 in the case of National Builders, vide order dt. 16th Dec., 1994. The learned counsel has also placed reliance on the case of Vinod Kumar Bhatia for the proposition that no question of law arises where the profit rate of 10 on payments received by the building contractors, was adopted and the Tribunal, thereafter, allowed deduction claimed on account of interest paid to the bank and depreciation on truck. The learned counsel has submitted that the Tribunal, while accepting the assessee s claim for depreciation, not only followed its earlier order in other two cases but also placed reliance on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court. 6. We have considered the rival contentions and we are of the view that no question of law arises from the Tribunal s order, whereby depreciation has been allowed, after adopting the rate of profit at 10 . 7. In the result, both the applications are rejected.
-
1995 (4) TMI 88 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... f the considered opinion that the learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,41,715 for asst. yr. 1986-87 and of Rs. 3,23,240 for asst. yr. 1987-88. We hold accordingly. 15. As regards the assessee s cross-objections, we find that the sales of the assessee have been accepted. The sale rate in the earlier years was also accepted which was still lower than what has been shown by the assessee in the two years under consideration. The application of an average rate of Rs. 15 for asst. yr. 1986-87 and Rs. 20 for asst. yr. 1987-88 by the Assessing Officer, in our opinion, was not justified. The learned CIT(A) was also not justified in sustaining a part addition. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that no addition in respect of the husk sold by the assessee could be made. The additions partly sustained are also deleted. 16. In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross-objections of the assessee are allowed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 87 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Assessing Officer, Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... In the assessment year 1984-85, ground No. 4 relates to the disallowance of Rs. 900 in respect of expenditure on the staff and guests. The Assessing Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 900 out of the total expenditure shown at Rs. 1,800. The learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that there was no justification to make the disallowance at 50 and moreover, expenditure could be allowed up to the ceiling limit of Rs. 5,000. We are in agreement with the learned counsel and find no justification to make the disallowance at Rs. 900 on an ad hoc basis. There appears no decision to make the disallowance at 50 of the total expenditure shown at Rs. 1,800. Therefore, ground No. 4 succeeds and the disallowance is deleted. 15. In the assessment year 1985-86, ground No. 4 relates to the entertainment expenses but this ground was not pressed by the learned counsel at the time of hearing. This ground is, therefore, rejected. 16. In the result, all the four appeals stand partly allowed
-
1995 (4) TMI 86 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Computation Period, Debt Owed, New Industrial Undertaking, Profits And Gains ... ... ... ... ..... General Meeting approved the directors recommendations in May 1964. The dividend was actually paid out of the general reserve thereafter. The High Court observed that the dividend declared in May 1964 would not relate back and it could not be held that the amounts represented any known or existing liability as on December 31, 1963. This position has been reiterated by the Bombay High Court in the case of Asbestos Cement Ltd. v. CIT 1995 211 ITR 290. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the inescapable conclusion is that as on I-10-1979, there was no debt owed so far as payment of dividend of Rs. 9 lacs was concerned and hence the aforesaid amount of Rs. 9 lacs was not to be reduced from the total amount of assets for purposes of computing capital employed for purposes of section 80J. The Assessing Officer is accordingly directed not to reduce the aforesaid amount of Rs. 9 lacs from the capital employed for purposes of section 80J. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed
-
1995 (4) TMI 85 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Assessment Year, Revenue Receipt, Trading Receipt ... ... ... ... ..... e instant case. The subsidy received by the assessee was based on power consumption. Power consumption, however, was only a measure for quantifying the subsidy and the subsidy was not given either for the specific purpose of recoupment of expenses or by way of a rebate from the tariff or for the specific purpose of meeting any portion of the cost of fixed assets. The very fact that with the help of the subsidy the assessee purchased a crane and a K.V.S. Station shows that the subsidy was utilised for the furtherance of industrial activities in the existing factory. 14. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation in holding that the subsidy received by the assessee was a capital receipt and not by way of addition to the trading profits of the assessee which could not be subjected to tax in the hands of the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. This ground is, therefore, allowed. 15. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 84 - ITAT CALCUTTA-D
Accounting Year, Assessing Officer, Carry Forward, Failure To File, Set On ... ... ... ... ..... gly, ground no.4 is allowed. 24. Having decided both the issues in favour of the assessee and having considered peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we ultimately come to the conclusion and hold as under A. That the assessee is entitled to the benefit of determination and carry-forward of loss to be set off in future assessment years on the basis of valid returns filed by the assessee B. (i) That the CIT (Appeals) was not justified in ignoring the above mentioned circular of the Board (ii) That the CIT (Appeals) was not justified in interpreting and applying the provisions of law and (iii) That the CIT (Appeals) was not justified in rejecting the claim of assessee for carry-forward of loss and, therefore, his order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 25. We, therefore, quash the order of the CIT (Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee the benefit of carry-forward of loss already determined by him. 26. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 83 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B
Assessing Officer, Assessment Proceedings, Income From Undisclosed Sources, Original Assessment, Reassessment Proceedings, Reopening Assessment
-
1995 (4) TMI 82 - ITAT BOMBAY
Charitable Or Religious Trust, General Public Utility ... ... ... ... ..... he object of charity, resultantly, the assessee claimed total deduction in respect of the cost of assets. In our opinion, again he cannot be permitted to claim the depreciation on the same. 23. The next ground in regard to the levy of interest under section 234B was stated to be consequential. We direct the Assessing Officer to grant consequential relief in respect of the same. 24. In view of our decision concerning the exemption under section 11, the ground apropos the ' mutuality ' does not survive. We dismiss the same as infrustuous. 25. Lastly, the ground apropos the allowability of set off and carried forward dcficit/loss of earlier years. There is no precedent, nor any express provision in law in regard to this. In our opinion, the claim of the appellant cannot be accepted. We do not find any force in the arguments given by the learned counsel. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on this count. 26. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 81 - ITAT BOMBAY
Additions To Income, Assessing Officer, Deduction Of Interest, Previous Year, Purchase Price, Revenue Receipt
-
1995 (4) TMI 80 - ITAT BANGALORE
A Firm, Assessment Proceedings, Previous Year, Words And Phrases ... ... ... ... ..... unsel for the assessee has also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. J.K. Hosiery Factory 1986 159 ITR 85 in which it has been held that in case of doubt, the assessee is entitled to an interpretation which is favourable to him. That would, however, be the case where two interpretations of equal strength are available. In the instant case the interpretation as sought for by the assessee is very weak and does not stand on proper legs on account of the discussions made by us above. On the other hand, the interpretation at which we have ultimately arrived as above, seems to be the correct interpretation on the basis of the various considerations as mentioned above. Hence, this particular decision of the Supreme Court does not come to be of much help to the assessee. We reverse the decision of the CIT (Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to treat the assessee as resident for taxation purposes. 5. In the result, the departmental appeal is allowed
-
1995 (4) TMI 79 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... the factory of the assessee. It was submitted by Shri Sudhir Sehgal that there is no ban in law on marking cash sales and simply because entire sales are cash, the AO was not justified in making the addition and the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the same. However, the fact remains that the sales have been made at cash basis, the rates varied from Rs. 15 to Rs. 20 per quintal, whereas the AO has noted in the assessment order that some of the concerns at Muktsar have valued the closing stock of chhilka at Rs. 50 per quintal. Thus, we are of the opinion that some addition is called for on account of suppression of sales/undervaluation of closing stock of chhilka and phak/rice bran. Keeping in view the facts and the circumstances of the case, it will be fair and reasonable to restrict the addition under this head to Rs. 10,000 as against Rs. 19,724 made by the AO. 16. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed partly whereas the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 78 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
... ...
... ... ..... st paid to the above sister concerns are same in all these cases. The disallowance was made by the AO on the ground that the sister concerns have been held to be non-genuine concerns and income of the said sister concerns was clubbed in the hands of the main firm. Consequently, interest paid to them was also disallowed after considering the interest received from such inter-firm. The CIT(A) deleted the said disallowance on the ground that all the four sister concerns have been held to be genuine concerns and their income has been held to be separately assessable in their respective hands on substantive basis. We have confirmed such findings given by the CIT(A) and, accordingly, the deletion of disallowance made in respect of interest paid to the sister concerns is also considered to be justified. The view taken by the CIT(A) in relation to such a ground in all the aforesaid appeals is, therefore, also confirmed. 14. In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 77 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
Fair Market Value, Immovable Property, Movable Property, Valuation Of Land, Valuation Officer, Wealth Tax Act
-
1995 (4) TMI 76 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... cross-objection filed by the assessee which reads as under In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case of appellant the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in not considering the ground that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is bad in law in so far as such order was passed with the previous approval of the Dy. CIT who had no jurisdiction to pass such an order and or who had not given a specific opportunity to the appellant of being heard before approving the order which is prejudicial to the appellant it, therefore, deserved to be cancelled. The appellant, therefore, prays that this Hon ble Tribunal may be pleased to hold that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and may be cancelled. In view of our findings in the Revenue s appeal above the cross-objection filed by the assessee has become infructuous. The same is accordingly dismissed. 16. In the result, the appeal by the Revenue and the cross-objection filed by the assessee are dismissed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 75 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Addition To Income, Amnesty Scheme, Assessing Officer, Partnership Firm, Revised Return, Search And Seizure
-
1995 (4) TMI 74 - SC ORDER
Appeal to Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... ghed the evidence and in the facts and circumstances of this case has held against the Revenue. We see no reason to interfere as, in our view, no question of law arises for determination. Even otherwise the amount involved is small and the unit is closed since long. Hence, the Civil Appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1995 (4) TMI 73 - SUPREME COURT
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... any reason for making a distinction between packages weighing 27 kgs. or less and those weighing in excess thereof? 2. The Collector, Central Excise (Judicial), Calcutta may record evidence, both oral and documentary, relevant to answering the aforesaid questions and submit a report to the concerned High Court. This report will be merely of assistance to the High Courts and not binding on them. In other words, the High Courts would be free on the basis of the evidence tendered before the Collector, Central Excise (Judicial) to reach its own conclusion on the aforesaid questions and thereafter dispose of the writ petitions afresh on the basis of its findings. The parties will be at liberty to urge all the points that they consider relevant before the High Courts. Having regard to passage of time we expect the Collector of Central Excise (Judicial) as well as the High Courts to dispose of the matters as early as possible. 3. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.
....
|
