|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 465 Records
-
1997 (2) TMI 195 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Plant and Machinery ... ... ... ... ..... tal investment made from time to time on plant and machinery installed in the industrial unit in which the said goods under clearance are manufactured is not more than Rs. 20 lakhs. rdquo The adjudicating authority, in our view, had extended the area of the proviso and we consider that when the three units were separate, they were located at different places and were separately registered under the Factories Act, as per the provisions of the said notification, the investment in plant and machiery was not to be clubbed. The Revenue had not placed any material in support of their contention that the value of plant and machinery of all the three units of M/s Tamil Nadu Mopeds Ltd. were to be taken to determine the eligibility of different units for the benefit of Notification No. 105/80-C.E. 5. emsp Taking all the relevant facts and circumstances of this case into account, we do not find any merit in this appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is rejected. Ordered accordingly.
-
1997 (2) TMI 194 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Voltage Controller ... ... ... ... ..... ing instruments or apparatus. Under para 6(d) of explanation to this Notification, instruments automatically regulating electrical quantities are indicated as falling under the category of electric measuring, checking, analysing or automatically controlling instruments. Since the examination report itself indicates that the goods are automatic voltage controls, the fact that they have left the Customs charge is not material. Since the examination report itself indicates that the goods are voltage controllers these would be covered in terms of Explanation 6 of the Notification No. 105/89-Cus. as automatically controlling instruments and apparatus which automatically regulates electric quantities. 6. emsp In view of this, we hold that, considering the report of the examination conducted by the Customs authorities themselves, the goods would be eligible for exemption of auxiliary duty under Notification No. 105/89. We therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1997 (2) TMI 193 - ITAT PUNE
Business Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... Krishan supported the decision of the learned Accountant Member. 4. This issue has been dealt at length by me as Third Member in the case of Maharashtra Scooters Ltd IT Appeal No. 587 (Pune) of 1988 . Following the reasons recorded in the said appellate order, I agree with the views expressed by the learned Judicial Member. I, therefore, answer the questions referred to me as under With regard to first question, whether the issue of purchase/sales tax set off involves the question of accounting of income, the answer is Yes . With regard to question No. 2 as to when such income is to be accounted for, my answer is that the income is to be accounted for in the year of sales tax assessment. With regard to question No. 3 regarding the application of section 43B, my answer is No . Question No. 4 is answered in the affirmative and question No. 5 is answered in the negative. 5. The matter will now go back to the regular Bench and be disposed by it according to the majority opinion.
-
1997 (2) TMI 192 - ITAT PUNE
Business Disallowance ... ... ... ... ..... I have very carefully gone through the reasons recorded by the learned Accountant Member and I am of the view that he has gone only on the basis of applicability of section 43B of the Income-tax Act. He has not viewed the problem from the angle of the Bombay Sales-tax Act provisions and the rules made thereunder. He has also not properly appreciated the decisions of the various Benches of the Tribunal to which reference has been made by the learned Judicial Member or by me above. In view of this position, I answer the reference as under With regard to question No. 1, I agree with the learned Judicial Member that the provisions of section 43B are not attracted to the case of the assessee, and regarding question No. 2, I again agree with the learned Judicial Member that the addition on account of sales-tax set-off cannot be legally made in the year under consideration. 21. The matter will now go back to the regular Bench and be disposed by it according to the majority opinion.
-
1997 (2) TMI 187 - ITAT NAGPUR
Unexplained Investments ... ... ... ... ..... the assessee stood discharged. The revenue authorities did not have any evidence to the contrary except lurking doubts in their mind which can be no substitute for hard evidence. I, therefore, hold that the assessee in the present case has discharged his onus of proof placed under section 69 of the Act. 20. As regards the question whether the addition was legally sustainable or not, in my opinion, it was not legally sustainable because the assessee had discharged the onus and the case of the department rested only on suspicion. 21. I would, therefore, agree with the view expressed by the learned Accountant Member and hold that adequate opportunity of hearing and leading evidence was not provided to the assessee that the assessee had discharged his onus of proof placed under section 69 of the Act and that the addition of Rs. 1,00,000 was not legally sustainable. 22. The matter will now go back to the Bench which originally heard the appeal for disposal in accordance with law.
-
1997 (2) TMI 186 - ITAT NAGPUR
Income-Tax Authorities, Power To Transfer Cases ... ... ... ... ..... he view expressed by the learned Judicial Member. 32. As regards question No. 2, left to myself, I may have come to a different conclusion. I may have held that if the assessments had been made validly, there was no question of setting aside the same for de novo assessments. As Third Member, however, my job is tailor-made. I have either to agree with one learned Member or with the other learned Member and cannot give expression to my own views. Since I have held that AC(IT), Investigation Circle-I, Nagpur, had valid jurisdiction at the time of framing of assessments, it is not possible for me to agree with the view expressed by the learned Accountant Member that the assessment orders were a nullity. Since I have no choice in the matter, I would agree with the learned Judicial Member that the assessments be set aside and restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. 33. The matter will now go to the Bench which originally heard the appeals for disposal in accordance with law.
-
1997 (2) TMI 182 - ITAT NAGPUR
Assessing Officer, Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Assessment Year, Tax At Source, Tax At Source
-
1997 (2) TMI 180 - ITAT MADRAS-A
Appellate Tribunal, Power To Rectify Mistakes ... ... ... ... ..... ed opinion, the learned Accountant Member very rightly came to the conclusion that in case this petition is allowed, it amounts to a review of the order of the Tribunal which is not permissible under Law. In effect, the petition under the guise of rectification of a mistake apparent from record, is seeking for a review of the order of the Tribunal which is not permissible under the Law. On a due consideration of the material available on record, I am in agreement with the view taken by the learned Accountant Member, that this Miscellaneous Petition deserves to be dismissed. 18. For these reasons, I agree with the opinion expressed by the learned Accountant Member. The matter will now go before the regular Bench for the disposal of the petition in accordance with the opinion of the majority. Per G.E. Veerabhadrappa, A.M.-In accordance with the order dated 22-1-1997 passed by the Third Member and in conformity with the majority view, the Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 178 - ITAT MADRAS-A
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Revised Returns ... ... ... ... ..... ocuments were seized from the residential premises and business promises of the firm in which the assessee was a partner. After incriminating documents were seized in the course of search, the assessee declared concealed income in the revised returns of income. The facts of the case of the assessee are, therefore, totally different and the ratio laid down by the Madras High Court in the case cited supra are not fully applicable to the assessee s case. 26. In the case of the assessee before us, no details of borrowed funds were furnished before the Assessing Officer and only a vague claim was made that borrowed funds have been utilised for investments which was not supported by any evidence or any details. The assessments have been made by the Assessing Officer on the income disclosed by the assessee in the revised returns of income filed after the search operations. We, therefore, dismiss the grounds of appeal. 27. In the result, appeals are dismissed for all the three years.
-
1997 (2) TMI 176 - ITAT JABALPUR
Amnesty Scheme, Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Cash Credits ... ... ... ... ..... deposited by all the minor creditors is amounting to Rs. 3,61,246. In respect of any amount found credited in the books of account of the assessee as per section 68 of the Income-tax Act, the onus is upon the assessee to prove genuineness of such credit. To discharge such onus, the assessee has to establish identity of the creditor, creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction. In this case, on the appreciation of the entire facts and surrounding circumstances, we have come to the conclusion that the creditworthiness of the creditors had not been established. Therefore, we hold that the assessee was unable to discharge the burden to prove the cash credit appearing in its books of account. Accordingly, we confirm the addition for the amount credited in its books of account amounting to Rs. 3,61,246. Similarly, disallowance of interest paid on this credit amounting to Rs. 11,849 is also confirmed. 15. In the result, the Revenue s appeal is partly allowed
-
1997 (2) TMI 175 - ITAT JABALPUR
Assessment Year, Assessment Year, Industrial Undertaking, Industrial Undertaking, Interest Income, Interest Income, Plant And Machinery, Plant And Machinery, Profits And Gains, Profits And Gains
-
1997 (2) TMI 174 - ITAT JABALPUR
Amnesty Scheme, Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Revised Returns ... ... ... ... ..... ion Nos. 4 and 5 and the answers given thereto that since the petitioner had truthfully disclosed its income and also paid taxes thereon within the prescribed time, the petitioner was immune from prosecution and penalty. I am fortified in my view by a decision of CWT v. Jangi Lal 1986 157 ITR 119 (All.), in which it was held that when a voluntary disclosure of wealth is made under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income-tax and Wealth Ordinance, 1975, and the assessment order is passed accepting the declaration, the assessee is entitled to immunity from the imposition of penalty. This decision also renders support to the view taken by us in the present appeals and we apply the same. In that view of the matter, we uphold and confirm the orders of the ld. CIT(A). Hence appeals are dismissed. 15. The cross-objections filed by the assessee are only in support of the order of the ld. CIT(A). As the orders of the ld. CIT(A) are confirmed, the same became infructuous and hence dismissed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 173 - ITAT DELHI-E
... ...
... ... ..... ny stage. We have also heard and discussed this ground of appeal in the earlier assessment year and held that in the absence of creation of any new asset the expenditure is clearly sSrevenue in nature and should, therefore, be allowed. Following the decision of the Tribunal the amount in question is held to be allowable and hence the addition deleted. 27. The next ground of appeal is in regard to disallowance of 1/4th of the expenditure on lunch for the executives at the mill andDelhioffice. In the immediately earlier assessment year we have discussed this ground in details and have held that this type of expenditure cannot be termed as entertainment in nature. The expenditure is clearly staff welfare in nature and should, therefore, be allowed in full. The disallowance in this year is, therefore, also deleted. 28. In the result, ITA No. 3898/Del/1990 is partly allowed, ITA No. 3865/Del/1990 is dismissed, ITA No. 4502/Del/1991 is allowed and ITA No. 1367(Del)/1992 is allowed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 172 - ITAT DELHI-E
Assessment Year, Chit Fund ... ... ... ... ..... bscribers and the assessee. In the instant case also the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of chits by organising its own chit groups as well also by participating the same. The assessee s contention is that the loss was incurred in obtaining the prized chits through competitive bidding or draw of lots, which is a normal feature of such business and the amount so obtained was utilised in its own business and as such the loss incurred in the process was a business loss. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case we accept the contention of the assessee. Accordingly, orders of the authorities below on the issue in question are quashed and the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the claim of the assessee on the issue in question. The aforesaid order covers the whole controversy in question. Therefore, we do not think it necessary to deal with the additional ground raised by the assessee. 8. In the result, appeal stands allowed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 171 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... ers passed by the tax authorities. As the grounds themselves denote the Revenue has filed an appeal only to keep the matter alive and it is not disputed that both the issues are covered in favour of the assessee by earlier orders of the Tribunal. We would only like to mention one aspect of the matter i.e. the relief to the assessee at 50 per cent on account of staff participation in the expenses which include outsiders as well since the balance 50 per cent is treated as expenditure on account of entertainment to be considered under s. 37(2A). This 50 per cent has been accepted on the facts of the assessee s case by the Tribunal in an earlier year when the total amount involved was Rs. 5,603 and after allowing statutory deduction the disallowance stood at Rs. 5,603 only. In the light of the discussion in the preceding portion, the two grounds in the Revenue s appeal stand rejected. 14. In the result, assessee s appeal is partly allowed whereas that of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 170 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... year of profit in which the assessee has claimed investment allowance. Therefore, the decision of Tribunal in the case of Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance under s. 32A. So far as the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Khatau Makanji Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. vs. CIT is concerned, that decision was rendered in connection with additional cost of plant and machinery and not related to the actual cost of machinery. Therefore, the facts of that case are also distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In view of our discussion, the assessee is entitled to investment allowance on plant and machinery on the actual cost increased due to fluctuation in foreign exchange rate. This ground is allowed. 4. In the result the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 169 - ITAT DELHI-D
Assessed Income, Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Income From Other Sources, Profits And Gains Of Business Or Profession, Purchase And Sale
-
1997 (2) TMI 168 - ITAT DELHI-D
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Earned Income, Income From Other Sources ... ... ... ... ..... etting the godowns and any servicing done in that connection represented an insignificant part of the entire transaction and, therefore, the respondent was entitled to exemption under section 14(3)(iiv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 in regard to the entire amount. The High Court affirmed the decision of the Tribunal, which was further affirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court. 13.5 We have carefully considered the rival submissions on this issue and we feel that the ratio of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case reported in South Arcot District Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. s case squarely applies in the present case and the supervision charges are connected with the ultimate activity of storage and warehousing of the wheat and the loading/unloading of wheat is incidental to the main activity. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the orders of the learned CIT(A). 14. In the result, both the appeals are allowed in part for statistical purposes.
-
1997 (2) TMI 167 - ITAT DELHI-C
Appellate Tribunal, Power To Rectify Mistakes ... ... ... ... ..... nt from record capable of being rectified under section 254(2). The Misc. Application is accordingly dismissed. 10. The matter should now be placed before the regular Bench for passing an appropriate order in accordance with the majority view. ORDER Per R.M. Mehta, A.M.--There was a difference of opinion between the Members of Division Bench who originally heard this miscellaneous application, the Judicial Member being of the view that the application was to be accepted and the order passed by the Tribunal required to be recalled whereas the Accountant Member expressed an opinion to the contrary rejecting the application. On the difference being referred to a Third Member, the parties were heard and an order dated15th January, 1997 passed whereby the Third Member concurred with the view expressed by the Accountant Member earlier to reject the application filed by the department. In accordance with the majority opinion, the miscellaneous application of the revenue is rejected.
-
1997 (2) TMI 166 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... sessee but a perusal of the record goes to show that the assessee had maintained complete records of original entries regarding names and addresses of such patients to whom treatment given or prescribed and fee charged. However, the same is not exactly in Form No. 3C but the information given in these registers basically comprised the requirement laid down in Form No. 3C. The cash book prepared after reconstruction from the impounded record show that there is progressive result of income in these years. Therefore, when the income declared is better than earlier year, there is no reason to sustain any addition. In view of our above discussion we are of the opinion that there is no justification to sustain any addition. So far as the Department s contention is concerned, we find that the Department has not made out any case vis-a-vis the material on record to sustain any addition. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee succeeds and the appeal filed by the Department fails.
............
|
