|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 107 Records
-
2003 (5) TMI 521
... ...
... ... ..... ibunal in the case of Principal Officer, Builcon Towers (P) Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT in IT(SS)A No. 96/Cal/1997 (Order dt. 17th May, 1999). The learned counsel also referred to the amendment in the Act brought about with effect from the first day of June, 2002, and which provided for surcharge over and above the amount of tax chargeable. The plea, in other words, was that the additional ground being legal, be admitted and adjudicated upon. The learned Departmental Representative did not oppose the admission of the additional ground and urged that the matter be restored to the file of the AO for a decision on merits. 65. After hearing the parties, we admit the additional ground, but restore the same back to the file of the AO asking him to decide the same on merits and in accordance with law along with some of the other grounds, which have been sent back to him, after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 66. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 519
... ...
... ... ..... to understand how such user can be characterised as a "personal use". The "personal use", which is contemplated by the exemption is not a pride of possession. The element of pride of possession can be understood, to some extent, in the case of Maharaja or Maharani, but it is difficult to understand in the case of a salaried employee like the assessee. 24. Therefore, on the given facts and in the light of the ratio laid down by the decisions relied upon by the Departmental Representative, unlike the ones relied by learned Authorised Representative which are distinguishable, we hold that the antique car held by the assessee is not a "personal effect" as occurring in s. 2(14)(ii) rather it is a capital asset. Consequently, the surplus realised on its sale is chargeable to capital gain under s. 45 of IT Act, 1961. 25. Accordingly, the decision of CIT(A) is reversed and that of AO is restored. 26. In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is allowed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 517
... ...
... ... ..... issue raised by the Revenue in the appeal does not survive for our consideration. However, relying on our observations in Bansal Credits Ltd.’s case (supra) to the effect that before granting depreciation at higher rate, it has to be examined whether the leased out vehicles are actually being used in the business of hire or not. Mr. Sanjeev Khanna, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue, would submit that in the present case, without examining the said aspect, the Tribunal has directed grant of depreciation at a higher rate only on the ground that the vehicles had been leased out by the assessee. 4. We do not agree with learned counsel for the Revenue for the simple reason that no such plea was sought to be raised on behalf of the Revenue before the Tribunal. As a matter of fact, it was not even Assessing Officer’s case that the vehicles had not been used by the lessee on hire. 5. In this view of the matter, we decline to entertain the appeal. Dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 515
... ...
... ... ..... the interest of the revenue and, therefore, the CIT will be within his jurisdiction and power to revise such order to recoup the loss to the revenue. As already stated above, in the case of civil contractors, net profit rate of 8 to 10 is normally accepted and admitted, and, therefore, I would direct the Assessing Officer to apply a net profit rate of 10 in the case of the assessee-company subject to depreciation." 8. Considering the aforesaid finding of the CIT in an order under section 263 of the 1961 Act, it cannot be said that CIT has not found that assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Tribunal has committed error in allowing the appeal on the ground that no such finding has been given. As the appeal has not been considered on merits, we set-aside the order of Tribunal dated 12-12-2000 and remit the matter back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal of the assessee on merits. 9. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
-
2003 (5) TMI 514
... ...
... ... ..... ital gains’ ?" 3. Similar question was considered in CIT v. Shashi Kumar Agrawal 1992 195 ITR 767 (All.) wherein it has been held that the profit from the sale of land after plotting it out to secure better price cannot be taxed as profit from an adventure in the nature of trade. 4. In view of the above decision, we answer the question referred to above in negative, i.e., it cannot be taxed as profit from an adventure in the nature of trade. 5. The Reference is accordingly disposed of. The parties shall bear their own costs.
-
2003 (5) TMI 513
... ...
... ... ..... ng of fact, we agree with the view taken by the authorities below that firm M/s Shree Products is not genuine and the Tribunal was fully justified in assessing and taxing the income of ₹ 23,18,210 in the hands of the assessee Ram Jas Nawal and his two sons in equal shares. No interference is called for. 25. The second issue relates to addition on account of gifts. Considering the concurrent finding of AO and Tribunal that the gifts shown are not genuine, no interference is called for on the findings of the fact that the gifts in question are not genuine. So far the case of the assesses that gifts are shown in the regular books is concerned, when the gifts could not be assessed and also found non-genuine and offered for tax by the assessee, now there is no question of deleting that addition which has been made by the AO and confirmed by the Tribunal. 26. Considering the aforesaid facts, no case is made out for any interference in the appeal. The appeal stands dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 479
... ...
... ... ..... ground that the assessee never carried on the business. The case under consideration before us is altogether different wherein the assessee admittedly carried on the business up to the assessment year 1985-86. Therefore, the above decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Rohita Subramaniam 2002 75 TTJ (Mumbai) 101 would not be applicable to the case under consideration before us. Accordingly, we hold that section 50 would be applicable in respect of the premises sold by the assessee during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1988-89 even though the assessee has not carried on the business from the assessment year 1985-86.In view of above, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and hold that the Assessing Officer was fully justified in assessing the profit from the sale of building as short term capital gain under section 50.In the result, the assessee s appeal stands dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 478
... ...
... ... ..... annot be treated as a casual and non-recurring receipt under section 10(3) of the Act also. An argument was raised that owing to fraudulent transaction, the assessee has received liquidated damages of Rs. 21 lakhs. Therefore, even if it has no cost of acquisition, it could, still fall under section 56. First of all I would like to mention here that the Commissioner of Income-tax has given a definite finding regarding charging of the amount under the head ldquo Capital gain rdquo . So this argument has no force. In the case of Cadell Weaving Mill Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT 2001 249 ITR 265, the hon rsquo ble Bombay High Court has held that if the asset has no cost, then it does not mean that the receipt would fall under section 56. This view was expressed while deciding the case of amount received on surrender of tenancy right which is equally applicable in the present case also. Now the matter will go back to the original Bench to decide the case in accordance with the majority view.
-
2003 (5) TMI 471
Business disallowance - Certain deductions to be allowed only on actual payment ... ... ... ... ..... the case of Hunsur Plywood Works Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 1995 54 ITD 394 (Bang.), Madras Radiators and Pressings Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 1996 59 ITD 515 (Mad.) and Fluid Air (India) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 1997 63 ITD 182 (Mum.). In these cases the Tribunal took into consideration that in the second proviso to section 43B, the words during the previous year are missing. As per the mandate of the section sum actually paid during the previous year are to be allowed. The proviso cannot restrict the scope of the section. The sum actually paid during the previous year, therefore, is to be allowed as per the mandate of the section. The sum paid after the previous year cannot be allowed. 6. The payment for the month of March was made belatedly beyond the previous year. As such, it cannot be allowed. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to allow the sum actually paid during the previous year. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed and the appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 470
Powers of Appellate Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... e as additional evidence. It is also necessary for the Assessing Officer to look into the circulars and instructions of CBDT on the question of jewellery to be allowed to a family without mentioning on proof source of acquisition. The Assessing Officer should also consider judge made law on the point. I, therefore, admit additional evidence and set aside the impugned assessment with the direction to the Assessing Officer to make a fresh assessment after considering all relevant material which is available with him or produced by the assessee and then pass a fresh order warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case. The remand to the Assessing Officer is necessary as Revenue cannot have adequate opportunity in these appellate proceedings to properly rebut the evidence relied upon by the assessee before me. Let this matter go to the Assessing Officer. The impugned orders are hereby set aside. 10. In the result, assessee rsquo s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2003 (5) TMI 469
Accrual of Income, Method of accounting, Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... at the claim that the foreman rsquo s commission or remuneration should be related to or determined on the basis of each chit completing its period, is not justified in view of the clear provisions of the CFA in regard to both accrual and right over it as brought out above. The change in the method of accounting of commission or remuneration from January 1, 1986, is therefore, not justified for the aforesaid reasons. The claim of the assessee is accordingly rejected. 12. The other issue in appeal is with reference to the rate of depreciation permissible to generators driven by petrol or diesel. The authorities were of the opinion that the rate of 30 per cent is applicable to generators that run on wind energy or other renewable energy device and rejected the claim of the appellant. In our opinion and on the facts of the present case, no interference is called for with the orders of the authorities and we uphold the orders. 13. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 468
Business disallowance - Excessive or unreasonable payments, ... ... ... ... ..... After considering the factual position in detail he has directed to delete the addition. 8. Ld. D.R. has supported the order of Assessing Officer and ld. A.R. has defended the order of CIT(A). 9. After considering the submissions and on perusal of the orders of the authorities below we are of the opinion that the facts of the case supports the view taken by ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the assessee was expanding its business, therefore, a suitable godown was required. To fulfil this requirement the assessee took on lease the said premises w.e.f. 1-4-1992. It was pleaded on behalf of the assessee that the said premises belonged to M/s. Ram Fabrics and the payment made was very reasonable comparing the fair rental value. Considering all such facts, there was no reason for an ad hoc disallowance of 50 per cent of the rent. Resultantly, we hereby affirm the finding of ld. CIT(A) and reject this ground of the revenue. 10. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 467
Deductions - Exporters ... ... ... ... ..... the interest received and computed under the head lsquo Income from other sources rsquo . In this case the Assessing Officer treated the interest income as income from other sources. As held by the Madras High Court in South India Shipping Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT 1999 240 ITR 241 the interest paid by the assessee on the borrowed funds cannot be deducted under section 57 from the interest received on deposits. It is not the case of the assessee that for earning the interest income from bank it had borrowed funds. Hence, in our opinion the interest paid by the assessee cannot be deducted from the interest earned by him. By respectfully following the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of K.S. Subbiah Pillai and Co. India Ltd. (supra) we hold that only gross income has to be taken for the purpose of reducing 90 per cent and not the net interest income. We find no infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities on this issue. 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 466
Cash credits - Assessment year 1990-91 ... ... ... ... ..... an to the assessee and the Assessing Officer while examining these creditors has accepted and confirmed the loan advanced by them. Therefore, keeping in mind the small amount of loan given by each creditor and respectfully following the decision discussed in foregoing paragraphs we do not find any justification for sustaining the addition of Rs. 71,000 and interest thereon of Rs. 5,135. Therefore, we reverse the order of the CIT(A). Thus, the assessee rsquo s appeal is allowed. Appeal No. 5332/Delhi/1995 10. The only ground of appeal is that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing relief of Rs. 55,000 plus interest thereon against the addition of Rs. 1,26,000 being various unexplained cash creditors, without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. For the reasons discussed by us in assessee rsquo s appeal, we dismiss the appeal of the department. 12. In the result, assessee rsquo s appeal is allowed and departmental appeal is dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 233
... ...
... ... ..... lsquo shall rsquo used in ss. 234A, 234B and 234C cannot be construed as lsquo may rsquo . Prior to Finance Act, 1987, the corresponding sections pertaining to imposition of interest used the expression lsquo may rsquo but the change brought about by the Finance Act, 1987, is a clear indication that the intention of the legislature was to make the collection of statutory interest mandatory. That expression is used deliberately. Similar expression lsquo shall rsquo is used in s. 158BFA(1) and, therefore, the ratio of Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Anjum M.H. Ghaswala squarely applies. The assessee either in his own case or in the case of other assessees whom he represents could not show as to how these appeals are maintainable before the learned CIT(A). Therefore, I do not find any infirmity or flaw in the order passed by the learned CIT(A) which is upheld and the appeals of the assesses are dismissed. 8. As a result, all the appeals of the assessees get dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 230
... ...
... ... ..... provision made in earlier year was reversed to the extent of Rs. 62.50 lakhs, which was claimed as a deduction during this year, as the same accrued on the declaration of dividend during the year. As per the assessee, income of Rs. 62.50 lakhs has already been taxed in the preceding year and, therefore, it should be allowed during this year. 90. The relevant facts and figures are required to be verified in the context of the assessment order for earlier assessment years. Hence, we direct the AO to verify the version of the assessee as stated above. In case, on verification, the version is found to be correct on the basis of assessment order on earlier assessment years, then the claim of the assessee should be considered and allowed accordingly. 91. In view of the above, ground Nos. 3 and 4 of the cross-objection are decided accordingly. 92. The cross-objection is partly allowed. 93. In the result, the appeal and the cross-objection are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2003 (5) TMI 229
... ...
... ... ..... return under s. 139(1), the same could not have been subjected to any proceedings under s. 139(9). Therefore, the assessment order passed on 29th Nov., 2000 is beyond time and without jurisdiction and these grounds being grounds 1, 2 and 3 on the issue had not at all been dealt with by the learned CIT(A) and has conveniently been ignored. Therefore, on this issue alone, the order of the learned CIT(A) cannot be maintained. Even the issue of notice under s. 143(2) is beyond limitation, i.e., not within one year of filing of return in response to notice under s. 148 though filed in protest, assessment cannot be said to be validly made being time barred. Under the circumstances, the assessment order being void ab initio, therefore, question of confirmation thereof does not arise and is liable to be quashed. Therefore, the order of the learned CIT(A) which arises from such an order cannot be maintained. 6. As a result, the appellant-assessee rsquo s appeal is treated as allowed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 226
Business expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... are dealing in milching process from the cattle and the technical method by which the milk produced by such milching is preserved in a better and hygienic way and for longer period is definitely a business activity of the assessee which definitely helps in increasing the production/profits as well as in keeping the business of the assessee going on. A condition has been laid down by the Government to have the TIP programme, that too for the betterment of the business of the assessee-society, which is mainly dealt by villagers. This condition is mandatory and is to be carried out by the assessee in order to continue its business. However, the grant-in-aid whenever these are received by assessee, from the Government, are to be taken care of by the Department as and when these are received and are to be dealt with in accordance with law. 13. As a result, we decide that the order of the CIT(A) does not require any interference from us. The appeals of the Department are dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 225
... ...
... ... ..... so of the opinion that when the assessment order has been held to be barred by limitation then there is no need to decide the same. Moreover, when this ground does not arise out of the appellate order, it will be futile exercise in case we send back this issue to the CIT(A) for deciding this issue on merits. As a result, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 28. Ground No. 6 raised in the CO is that the assessee has pleaded to award costs. But the learned counsel has not been able to convince us regarding awarding of costs to the assessee. In addition to that, we are of the opinion that no cost is liable to be awarded to the assessee in the given facts and circumstances of the case. As a result, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 29. Remaining ground Nos. 7 and 8 are also dismissed being general in nature which does not require any adjudication in these circumstances. 30. As a result, we dismiss the appeal of the Department and partly allow the cross-objection of the assessee.
-
2003 (5) TMI 222
... ...
... ... ..... sed by the assessee are allowed. 40. Ground Nos. 4(a) and (b) relate to the addition on account of value of Kabad. Similarly, the ground Nos. 5(a), (b), (c), (d), relate to the addition of Rs. 22,800 on account of double price charged. Ground Nos. 6 (a) and (b) relate to the addition on account of price difference. 41. We have considered all these items while adjudicating the appeal directed by the Revenue. In view of our findings therein, all these grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed. 42. Ground Nos. 7 and 8 have not been pressed, hence these are dismissed. 43. Ground No. 9 related to the levy of interest under s. 234B of the Act. As this ground of appeal is consequential in nature, the AO is directed to recalculate the interest, if any, on the basis of income determined as per our order. 44. The appeal directed by the assessee is partly allowed. 45. In the net result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed.
........
|
