|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 320 of 465 Records
-
1997 (2) TMI 165 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... less than the family of Anil Kumar, we are of the opinion that the household expenses shown at Rs. 6,000 is very low. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 15,000 towards household expenses was genuine. Since we have upheld the addition in the trading account of firm Anu Petha Store where assessee is partner of 50 per cent share this will take care of low household expenses to the extent of assessee s share. In view of the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court and the decision of Delhi High Court cited above, the benefit of telescoping of addition shall be given to the assessee against the additions sustained in the trading results. In view of this, we direct the ITO to give relief to this extent and accordingly compute the low household expenses, if any. 9. In view of our discussion, the Departmental appeal is hereby dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. The learned assessee s counsel did not press the cross-objection and hence this is dismissed as withdrawn.
-
1997 (2) TMI 164 - ITAT DELHI-B
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Reasonable Cause, Special Audit ... ... ... ... ..... vened in assessment proceedings from that stage onwards. The assessment has not been made in accordance with requirement of statute and principle of natural justice. The assessment is to be set aside. We direct accordingly and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh assessment order in accordance with law. His authority to order a special audit is not affected by our directions. He can again consider ordering special audit in accordance with law and in the light of our observations given above. Fresh assessment is to be made after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Shri Syali learned counsel for the assessee had fairly conceded that assessment is not to be annulled but is to be set aside and matter restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment. For reasons given above, we accept this contention of Shri Syali. 16. In the result, assessee s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
1997 (2) TMI 163 - ITAT DELHI-A
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Bona Fide, Conveyance Allowance, Tax At Source ... ... ... ... ..... estment Corpn. of India Ltd. s case Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. s case Indian Airlines v. Asstt. CIT TDS Nos. 13 to 19 (Delhi) of 1995 , Mahindra and Mahindra LTD. v. 2nd ITO IT Appeal Nos. 9869,9870 and 9871 (Bom.) of 1989 and Glaxo India Ltd. IT Appeal Nos. 104 to 107 (Bom.) of 1990 and others as cited which are on the same point, we are of the view that penalty under section 201 of the Act is not leviable. 7. As regards decisions cited by the Revenue, these relate to interpretation of provisions of section 10(14) of the Act. We have already opined elsewhere in the order that this would be dependent on the assessee establishing that the conditions as laid down in section stand fulfilled. Accordingly in our considered view penalties levied under section 201(1) of the Act for all the years cannot be upheld. 8. In view of above, we would also delete the interest leviable under section 201 A of the Act. 9. In the result, all the 18 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 162 - ITAT CALCUTTA-E
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Reference To Valuation Officer, Registered Valuer, Unexplained Investments, Valuer's Report
-
1997 (2) TMI 161 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A
For Failure To Get Accounts Audited ... ... ... ... ..... nable cause under section 271B, read with section 273B, of the Act. Thus, the question referred tome by this reference under section 255(4) of the Act is answered in the negative and I hold that the penalty is not leviable under section 271B of the Act, in the instant case. 18. Let the records be placed before the Division Bench for further orders in accordance with law. ORDER Per Shri R. Acharya, AM -- In this appeal filed by the department since we have differed in opinion, the matter was sent to the Third Member under section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for decision. The Third Member, by order dated 31-12-1996 agreed to the view taken by the Judicial Member who was against restoration of penalty imposed on the assessee. 2. Consequently, after hearing both the parties we hold that the CIT(A) was right in vacating the order imposing the penalty of Rs.1,00,000 by the Assessing Officer, in accordance with the majority decision. 3. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 160 - ITAT BANGALORE
Assessing Officer, Assessment Order, Assessment Year, Factory Building, Land Appurtenant, Net Wealth, Wealth Tax Act
-
1997 (2) TMI 159 - ITAT BANGALORE
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Levy Of Penalty, Penalty For Concealment ... ... ... ... ..... edits represented its undisclosed income, the High Court held that inasmuch as no evidence had been produced to prove the concealment of income independently, penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be imposed. Again, in the case of CIT v. Adamkhan 1997 223 ITR 264 (Mad.), search operations conducted by the department showed undisclosed loans and the assessee agreed for addition of the amount on the condition that penalty would not be levied. The finding of the Tribunal was, however, that income had been computed on basis of estimate. The High Court held that the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c). On the basis of the facts of the present case, therefore, and taking into consideration the abovementioned 2 decisions of the Madras High Court, we must agree with the CIT(Appeals) that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty for concealment of income. We, therefore, uphold his order. 7. In the result, the departmental appeal fails.
-
1997 (2) TMI 158 - ITAT BANGALORE
Assessment Year, Written Down Value ... ... ... ... ..... isdictional High Court has, in the case of Machine Tool Corporation of India Ltd. also held . . . . where the assessee has substituted a revised return, the entries in the relevant column of the original return seeking depreciation could not be used for any purpose. It was, therefore, not open to the Income-tax Officer to advert to the original returns or the statement filed along with it for the purpose of allowing deductions after such claim was expressly withdrawn under the revised return. Following the above decisions, we hold that the assessee, in this case, is entitled to get depreciation on the written down value fixed for the assessment Near 1982-83 as the assessee has not claimed depreciation from the assessment years 1983-84 to 1987-88, the written down value being Rs. 4,76,490 for the assessment year 1982-83. Thus, we reverse the order of the CIT(A). The claim of the assessee, in this regard, is allowed. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed
-
1997 (2) TMI 157 - ITAT BANGALORE
Account Books, Account Books, Assessing Officer, Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Assessment Year, Bona Fide, Bona Fide, Inaccurate Particulars, Inaccurate Particulars, Penalty For Concealment, Revised Returns, Revised Returns, Search And Seizure, Search And Seizure
-
1997 (2) TMI 156 - ITAT BANGALORE
Assessment Year, Bad Debt, Court Fee, Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... condly even if it be considered to be the case of a bad debt written off in the books of the assessee, such bad debt would not be allowable inasmuch as the basic condition for allowing the bad debt does not stand fulfilled. Ultimately therefore, there is no question of allowing the amount either as expense incurred in this year or even as bad debt. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the CIT(A) wrongly ordered for allowing the amount as expense. Hence, we reverse the order of the CIT(A) and restore the addition. 6. In the cross-objection filed by the assessee, disallowance of an amount of Rs. 5,000 out of sundry expenses on account of lack of proper vouchers etc., has been challenged. Looking to the facts of the case, we would like to reduce the disallowance to Rs. 2,000 only. The assessee thus gets the benefit of Rs. 3,000 only on this account. 7. In the result, the departmental appeal is allowed whereas the cross-objection filed by the assessee is also partially allowed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 155 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
... ...
... ... ..... s decision even though in favour of the petitioner company would be of no avail and, therefore, in our opinion any such steps would cause liquidation of the petitioner company before it gets justice from the High Court. In the meanwhile since all the assets of the petitioner company are already attached by the IT Department, the Department is secured to the maximum possible. Under the circumstances we feel that it is a fit case in which stay of recovery should be granted on certain conditions. 5. We accordingly stay the outstanding demand till the decision of the High Court on the reference application or 31st Dec., 1997, whichever is earlier, subject to the condition that the petitioner company will furnish an adequate security to the satisfaction of the AO. In the meanwhile, as assured by the learned counsel for the petitioner company he will approach the High Court for an early hearing of the reference application. 6. In the result, the stay petition is allowed protanto.
-
1997 (2) TMI 154 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... tunity of being heard to the assessee. The principles of natural justice should be read into the provisions of ss. 234B and 234C as these sections are in substitution of the earlier provisions for levy of interest and the earlier provisions for levy of penalty. As these principles were not observed and taking note of the circumstances in which the assessee was placed with the fixed deposits having been frozen, we delete the levy of interest under ss. 234B and 234C of the IT Act. In the view we have taken on this issue, we do not go into the alternative contention of the assessee for suitable deduction in the quantum of interest. This ground accordingly succeeds. 14. The last ground raised by the assessee reads as under The learned CIT(A)-V, Ahmedabad, erred in confirming the issue regarding jurisdiction without appreciating the facts. 14.1 At the time of hearing, this ground was not pressed. The same is accordingly dismissed. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.
-
1997 (2) TMI 153 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... o interfere with the GP shown by the assessee in relation to the work-in-progress as the GP disclosed by the assessee are similar to the earlier assessment year when the same type of accounts were kept by the assessee. 7.1 In respect of extra work done by the assessee, in our opinion, the same was rightly included by the AO as income of the assessee in view of the fact that the details of the expenses incurred towards them had not been produced by the assessee. In these circumstances, it has to be taken that the cost incurred for that purpose had already been included in the trading account disclosing the GP which has been accepted. 7.2 Coming to the interest under ss. 139(8), 215 and 217 we are of the opinion that liability of interest cannot be denied in these cases. However, the same should be restricted on the basis of calculation after giving effect to this appellate order. 8. In the result, the assessee s appeals are partly allowed, the Revenue s appeals are dismissed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 152 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... India and exported, means - the rebate of duty chargeable on any imported materials or excisable materials used in the manufacture of such goods in India From the language used in Rule 2(a) of the Drawback Rules, it is clear that it relates to Section 75 ibid. In the instant case, the goods were imported and subsequently, re- exported under Section 74 ibid. As such, these goods are governed by the provisions and the rules framed under Section 74 ibid only. 6.Govt., therefore, after taking into consideration harmonious interpretation of Section 75 ibid read with the Drawback Rules holds that the claim for supplementary drawback envisaged in Rule 13 of the Drawback Rules can be filed in respect of the goods exported under Section 75 ibid only and not for the goods exported under Section 74 ibid. 7.In view of the foregoing discussions and findings, Govt. does not find any merit to interfere with the orders of the lower authority. The revision application is accordingly rejected.
-
1997 (2) TMI 151 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... sfied that a question of law which requires reference to the High Court arises out of the order passed by the Tribunal. The questions suggested are not accurate and requires modification. 10.The following question of law which arises out of the order disposing of the appeals requires reference to the High Court - Whether the Appellate Tribunal after having found that Dryer Press Felt and Phosphor Bronze Metalic wire are parts of machine and used in relation to the manufacture of specified final products, is correct in holding that these parts of machine are not excluded from the definition of input by exclusion clause (i) of the Explanation to Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and if so, is correct in holding that the assessee is entitled to Modvat credit in respect of duty of central excise paid on such goods? 11.A Statement of Case shall be drawn up in this case and reference made to the High Court of Bombay. 12.The reference application is disposed of accordingly.
-
1997 (2) TMI 150 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... he erstwhile excise tariff, which was applicable, and held that the authorities below had been in error in seeking to levy excise duty under Entry 68 on the specialised equipment on the chassis. 2. This view is so plainly correct that it is not necessary to go into the alternative contention on behalf of the assessee, which was also accepted by the Tribunal. 3. The civil appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 149 - SC ORDER
"Diakanol AHM" (derivative of polyacrylic) ... ... ... ... ..... ere judgments/orders, according to which, the product in question was classified under Item No. 68, and the case of the appellant being a solitary one and the entry itself had been superseded in 1985, the relief may be granted treating the case falling within Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff for the relevant year. In view of this statement made in paragraph 4 of the affidavit dated 6-2-1997, we set aside the impugned order and hold that the product in question should be classified under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff and relief be granted to the appellant accordingly. 2. The appeal will stand disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 148 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... vil appeal filed against the judgment in the case of Laxmi Chemicals was dismissed by this Court on 12th January, 1996 (Civil Appeal No. 11994 of 1995). The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 147 - SC ORDER
Refund - Unjust enrichment ... ... ... ... ..... d by the appellants on 27th March, 1991, that is to say, well before the amendments in the statute relating to unjust enrichment. That aspect does not, therefore, come into consideration and no other point is made out. The appeal is dismised. 2. No order as to costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 146 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ble, whereupon they filed the writ petition. The submission that the petitioners did not know of the mistake until then is belied by the fact that the payments were made under protest. 2. The SLP is dismissed.
............
|
