|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 69 Records
-
2000 (6) TMI 136
Penalty, For Concealment Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... , therefore, feel that the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court has the approval of the Apex Court and, therefore, this decision is applicable throughout the country. 10. Keeping in view the above facts, we do not find any reason to deviate from our earlier stand. Besides in the present case, we feel that the appellant was not at all involved in the affairs of the firm. The surrender was made clearly in terms of Explanation 5 under section 271(l)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The contention of the learned D.R. that when the assessee made surrender before the Authorised Officer, who recorded the statement under section 132(4), no assurance could be given as the Authorised Officer has no power to give such assurance or not to impose penalty for concealment, is totally incorrect. We do not agree with the learned D.R. on this account. In the instant case, we cannot but agree with the conclusions drawn by the CIT(Appeals) and hence the appeals filed by the revenues are dismissed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 135
Erroneous And Prejudicial Order ... ... ... ... ..... sment order. Nothing has been brought to our notice that the controversy with regard to 100 per cent depreciation on individual centering plates costing below Rs. 5,000 has been resolved by any judicial pronouncement till date. We have also examined the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. M.M. Khambhatwala (1992) 198 ITR 144 (Guj) in which their Lordships have held that the CIT can exercise his powers even where the issue is debatable. 7. Taking into account the totality of the facts of the case in the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the finding of the AO with regard to depreciation on centering plate is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue and the CIT was justified in setting aside the order of the AO on this count with the direction to reframe the assessment in the light of the relevant provisions of law. We, therefore, uphold the order of the CIT on this count. 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 134
Change Of Opinion ... ... ... ... ..... direction of the learned CIT(A) to start computation from the figures arrived at after giving effect to orders of CIT(A) and Tribunal in his assessment order under s. 143(3)/147, the AO has stated the computation from the figure of total income originally assessed and not from the figures arrived at after giving effect to the orders of CIT(A) and the Tribunal. Against this, the assessee has preferred appeal and the learned CIT(A) directed to start computation from the figures arrived at after giving effect to orders of CIT(A) and Tribunal. The Revenue has filed these appeals against this finding of the CIT(A). 10. During the course of hearing, the learned Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the AO, whereas the learned authorized representative of the assessee relied on the order of the CIT(A). 11. We have considered the submissions and have perused the order of the CIT(A) and the same is upheld. 12. In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 133
Capital Gains, Computation Of ... ... ... ... ..... ain is computed after first converting both acquisition cost and sale consideration into Rupee-terms at the conversion rates existing on the respective dates of acquisition and sale. The sale consideration becomes more than the purchase cost in terms of rupee, only because the acquisition cost is watered down by the diminution in the conversion value of Indian Rupee against US Dollar. Otherwise, there is no capital gains in real terms. 6.4 The acquisition cost of 1,23,172 US Dollars is definitely more than the sale consideration of 1,00,000 US Dollars and there is no capital gains. The piquant situation of positive capital gains made out by the Assessing Officer is only because of the involvement of conversion rate of US Dollars into Indian Rupee varying from time to time. 7. For the above reasons as well the orders of the lower authorities cannot be sustained and the appeal of the assessee has to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed and the impugned assessment is cancelled.
-
2000 (6) TMI 132
Allowability ... ... ... ... ..... ribed authority. On such reference, the decision of the prescribed authority becomes final. The above decision was taken in appeal before the apex Court but this question was not pressed before the Hon ble Court. Thus, the Department has accepted the decision of jurisdictional High Court. 26. In view of the above discussion, we can safely conclude that the AO was factually and legally wrong in making addition on account of revenue expenditure incurred by the assessee by treating the same as capital expenditure. No interference in the findings recorded by the CIT(A) is required for holding the assessee as R and D company, as the same are as per materials on record. Nothing was brought on record by learned Departmental Representative to persuade us to deviate from the findings recorded by the CIT(A) resulting in allowability of entire expenditures incurred by the assessee which were undisputedly revenue in nature. 27. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 130
... ...
... ... ..... w.e.f. 1-4-1995, so as to provide that the first recipient of foreign exchange would be entitled to deduction under section 80HHD in respect of the amount retained by him and not in respect of amount which represents payments passed on to the other assessees. We are presently not concerned with the question whether this provision is retrospective or not. 9.1 On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case in its entirety and in view of the foregoing discussion we hold that the above referred amendments made by the Finance Act, 1992 by introducing Explanation to section 80HHD(2) and sub-section (2A) are retrospective in nature. We would, therefore, set aside the orders of the authorities below and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for recomputing relief under section 80HHD, after verifying that the procedural requirements have been satisfied by the assessee. 10 to 18. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.
-
2000 (6) TMI 129
Accrual Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... 34B and 234. We direct the Assessing Officer to quantify the charging of interest, if any, under the aforesaid sections while giving effect to the appellate order. 8.3 Rest of the grounds raised are general in nature and require no comments. 8.4 Inthe result appeal is partly allowed. 9. InITA No. 5907/Delhi/98 ground Nos. 1 to 8 stand decided in favour of assessee in view of our findings given in paras 2 to 5.20 above. 9.1 Next ground raised in this appeal relates to addition on account of low withdrawals at Rs.48,500. Inview of our finding given in para 8.1 above, the ground stands rejected. 9.2 Next ground raised in this appeal relates to charging of interest under section 234B. The charging of interest being consequential, the Assessing Officer is directed to quantify the interest, if any, while giving effect to appellate order. 9.3 Rest grounds raised in this appeal are general in nature and require no comments. 10. Inthe result, all the four appeals stand partly allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 128
Return Of Income, Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... turn under section 139(4). Subsequently, he did not file corrected return, but a revised return. The fact of filing the revised return was admitted by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. As such, the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of theApex Courtrendered in the case of Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court, I am inclined to agree with the view taken by the learned Judicial Member, on this point. 7. Once it is decided that the return dated16-3-1995filed by the assessee was a non est return, the next question in regard to the issuance of notice under section 143(2) becomes insignificant. However, I am inclined to agree on this aspect with the view taken by the learned Judicial Member. In the ultimate analysis, I uphold the view taken by the learned Judicial Member. 8. The matter will now go before the Regular Bench for deciding the appeal in accordance with the opinion of the majority.
-
2000 (6) TMI 127
Charitable Purpose ... ... ... ... ..... ation, the surplus assets after satisfying the liability and debts cannot be distributed and is to be given to another Society having similar objects and (v) its activities are on commercial line and, therefore, the profit motive and the object of general public utility are so intermixed, interlaced, interwoven that they cannot be separated. All these facts and circumstances show that it was a charitable institution but it loses exemption because it is hit by the ten restrictive words in the definition given under section 2(15) of the Act. 25. Before parting with this case, we wish to place it on record the efforts put in by the learned counsel of the assessee Shri S.N. Rotho and the learned Departmental Representative Shri B.B. Panigrahi in placing the facts of this case comparing these with innumerable decided cases aforesaid and legal submissions and distinctive features which enabled us to arrive at the aforesaid decision. 26. In the result, all the appeals are dismissed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 126
Appellate Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... ppear, to plead and to act by virtue of appointment by the Central Government, and by notification in the Official Gazette. Therefore, even if an Assessing Officer is appointed by the Central Govt. to appear, to plead and to act before the Tribunal, the officer represents the department before the Tribunal not in his capacity as the Assessing Officer but only because of the Notification issued by the Central Government. Since section 254(2) specifically states that only an Assessing Officer can bring the mistake to the notice of the Tribunal, it means that only the Assessing Officer can file Misc. Petition. 8. Even otherwise, vide para 6 of its order, the Tribunal had already taken the view that the departmental representative cannot file Misc. Petition, and even the second Misc. Petition filed again by the departmental representative is liable to be dismissed on this ground also. 9. For the reasons stated above, the Misc. Petition filed by the revenue fails and is dismissed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 125
Deduction, Exporters ... ... ... ... ..... a reserve till the end of the rectification proceedings. The ratio of the decision of the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in the case of R.R. Hosiery (P.) Ltd., also supports the view that the assessee could be allowed to create a reserve even subsequent to the assessment. We may also mention that no argument has been advanced before us as to the time limit for effecting any rectification order in the present case. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee was entitled to create the reserve subsequent to the modification order in the present case passed by the Assessing Officer determining the total income at a positive figure. We accordingly set aside the order of the revenue authorities. The Assessing Officer may examine the case for deduction under section 80HHC and allow the claim if the other conditions are fulfilled. He should not deny the claim on the ground that the reserve has been created belatedly. Subject to the above remarks, the appeal is allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 124
Deductions, Income Of A Co-operative Society ... ... ... ... ..... , the co-op society would not be eligible for exemption on the plea that sugar so manufactured/produced remains an agrl. produce grown by members. Thus, on facts and in the circumstances of the case we feel that assessment order made by Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Accordingly, we uphold order of CIT under section 263. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. 92/190 120011 78 ITD 206 (MUM.) IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH C Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax V. Ms. M.N. Palia M.V.R. PRASAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT APPEAL NO. 944 (MUM.) OF 1996 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 FEBRUARY 4,2000 Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, I l - Capital gains - Not to be changed in case of investment in residential house - Assessing Officer disallowed exemptionclaimedbyassessee undersection 54Fon ground thatinvestment made in construction of a new residential house was prior to receipt of sale PARTgCl AUGUST 22,2001 4 30
-
2000 (6) TMI 123
Allowable As, Business Expenditure, Manufacturing Various Automobile Components ... ... ... ... ..... tal field. By incurring such expenditure, the assessee has only effected economy and efficiency in manufacturing the existing items. The expenditure does not relate to altogether a new business or for setting up a new line of business or expansion of the existing business. By incurring such expenditure the assessee has only obtained business advantage. Moreover, the benefit acquired by the assessee is not of enduring nature to put the impugned expenditure in the category of capital in nature. The assessee has not acquired any capital asset in the nature of exclusive user of technical information. It is in the nature of up-dating the existing information already available with the assessee. Therefore, the expenditure incurred by the assessee is of revenue nature and is allowable under section 37 of the Act. Having regard to these facts and circumstances of the case, we confirm the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the Revenue s appeal. 14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 122
Income Chargable As ... ... ... ... ..... pellant from using his technical knowledge inasmuch as, such prohibition cannot prevent him from using his own brain and therefore the prohibiting clause in the agreement between the appellant and M/s Recon Pharma Pvt. Ltd., has no bearing on the nature of transaction--whether capital or revenue in the present case. If the assessee travels beyond the clause of agreement and sells its know-how to others, the Deptt. is not handicapped to take appropriate action and assess the appellant accordingly. We thus are of the opinion that the receipt in question in the hands of the assessee was capital receipt. The contrary findings of the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) that the receipt amounting to Rs. 40 lakhs in the hands of the assessee was his business income is therefore set-aside. The Assessing Officer is directed to deal with the matter afresh treating the said receipt of Rs. 40 lakhs in the hands of the assessee as capital receipt. 21. In result, the appeal is allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 121
... ...
... ... ..... scussion above and also in view of the fact that the assessee-bank has to comply with the various norms and guidelines prescribed by the RBI in respect of rural advances and matters relating to credit policy, accounting standards and reporting system, we are unable to find any merit in the reasoning adopted by the learned Commissioner in directing the Assessing Officer to disallow the claim under section 36(1)(viia) in toto and that too in the light of the clear finding given by the learned first appellate authority on the very same issue in crystal clear terms to the effect that the assessee is entitled to deduction at 5 per cent of the total income and also at 2 per cent of the advances made by the rural branches in accordance with the provisions of this section . 22. In the light of the foregoing discussion we hold that the impugned order is liable to be cancelled on ground of jurisdiction as well as on merits. We order accordingly. 23. In the result the appeal is allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 120
... ...
... ... ..... recorded a finding qua the service of notice and if, in fact, it was not received within time, then he should have re-called his order and decide the claim of the assessee on merits. The Hon ble Supreme Court in AIR 1987 at p. 1353 has observed as under It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. 11. We feel that the assessee has been entangled in the net of technicalities and his claim has never been considered on merit. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we set aside the orders of the revenue authorities below and direct the AO to recall his order, dt. 21st March, 1989 and redecide the issue with regard to carry forward of loss afresh. The controversy pertains to asst. yr. 1986-87. It will be appreciated, if the learned AO decides the issue at an early date. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2000 (6) TMI 119
... ...
... ... ..... on on the interest income of Rs. 3,50,91,800 which has been worked out 11 per cent on the reserve funds as on 1st April, 1993, at Rs.31,90,16,582. For this assessment year also we hold that on a similar basis as per asst. yr. 1995-96 held by us as above, the AO would allow proportionate administrative expenses and work out the net interest income by deducting such expenses from the interest income of Rs. 3,50,91,800 and on this net figure claim of exemption under s. 80P(2)(a)(i) would be disallowed. We hold accordingly. 22. Before parting with these appeals, we may observe that various decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts cited by the learned representatives of both the sides have been considered by us, even though some of these decisions could not be specifically mentioned by us. 23. The AO is directed to give effect to this order. 24. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for asst. yr. 1995-96 and the Revenue s appeal for asst. yr. 1994-95 are partly allowed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 118
Interest On Borrowed Capital, Actual Cost, Interpretatin Of Statutes ... ... ... ... ..... that the assessee is entitled to deduction of this amount of Rs.1,56,76,000 on account of interest on borrowings being revenue expenditure. Shri Gopal Chowdhury, Judicial Member was of the opinion that since this interest related to the amount borrowed for investment in additional machinery installed by the assessee, it should be treated as a capital expenditure. Accordingly, the point of difference was referred to the Third Member under section 255(4) of the Act. Now, Shri B.M. Kothiari, Accountant Member as Third Member in his order dated 12-5-2000 has agreed with the view taken by the Accountant Member and held that the disputed amount of Rs.1,56,76,000 is clearly deductible under section 36(1)(iii). Therefore, this ground of appeal No. (2) in ITA No. 444/Ahd/ 1997 is allowed in view of the majority view of the Members as per section 255(4) of the Act. 2. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 117
Business Expenditure, Business Disallowance ... ... ... ... ..... of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 as well as the decisions of Cochin Bench, Chandigarh Bench and Indore Bench of the Tribunal taking a similar view. In any case, since the entire issue is before the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in reference filed by the Income-tax Department for assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94 we are not inclined to take a contrary view or refer the issue to a larger bench for consideration. At this stage we may observe that Shri Dave fairly conceded that since the issue is pending adjudication before a higher judicial former, it may not be appropriate for us to disagree with the earlier decision of the Ahmedabad Bench as referred to above. 45. For the reasons as discussed hereinbefore, we hold that deduction under section 80HHC would be computed in accordance with the observations/directions as given above. 46. In the result, the cross-objection of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2000 (6) TMI 116
Audit Information ... ... ... ... ..... provided to one house. What will constitute one house, was considered by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shiv Narain Chaudhan. In that case, there were three residential units, bearing three different municipal numbers. Each unit was occupied by separate members of the HUF. For the purposes of WT Act, the Hon ble High Court which is the jurisdictional High Court, has held that all the three houses were one house and exemption under s. 5(1)(iv) of the WT Act was allowable accordingly. We, therefore, feel that on merit, this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of jurisdictional High Court though given in the WT Act. We, therefore, hold that the CIT(A) (sic-ACED) was not justified in confirming the order of Asstt. CED. We direct the Asstt. CED to allow exemption under s. 33(1)(n) in respect of both the units owned by assessee, which constituted one house. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the accountable person is partly allowed.
|
