|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 164 Records
-
1980 (10) TMI 104 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... out the relevant materials is the omission to put those vital questions at that crucial stage. Even on 12th Oct., 1975 when Mathew M. Thomas was examined he could have been confronted with his previous statement and questioned as to whether he gifted in his individual capacity and how much was his contribution. Such things having not been done we cannot permit the GTO to go on drawing inferences which according to the assessee are only wild inferences and not justifiable or permissible under any circumstances. We find that this is a case where the GTO could have brought on the relevant facts for an assessment on the individuals. It was possible in the case. That has not been done. So it is possible only to assessee the firm or the AOP as is protectively sought to be done. 7. So we dismiss these departmental appeals. The three cross objections are not pressed by the assessees. 8. So the three departmental appeals and the three cross objections by the assessees are dismissed.
-
1980 (10) TMI 103 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... ed to s. 80HH. Therefore, we hold that the assessee is processing articles. 7. The other argument that the assessee has got done the major operation of processing by another concern and, therefore, it is not entitled to the deduction is not an acceptable argument. It appears that the assessee uses the facilities of one of its sister concern for processing. But that is not material. The end product of the business of the assessee is shrimp fit for export. If in that processing of producing article some intermediate work is got done either by or through another concern, it is not material. It does not detract from the nature of business of the assessee. So the relief was rightly given by the AAC. 8. ITA No. 269 (Coch)/78-79 asst. yr. 1976-77 appeal of assessee The AAC need not work the quantum. He has left it to the ITO. There is nothing wrong in it. The assessee can have no grievance. The appeal dismissed. 9. In the end, assessee s and department s appeals are both dismissed.
-
1980 (10) TMI 102 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... cts and circumstances arising from the original return and ending with the voluntary disclosure petition clearly show that there is concealment. The plea, that chitty subscriptions were made by the father of the appellant and as a matter of compromise, which was agreed to be included in the income of the assessee, which was raised in the cross objection, is only taken up for the first time. It has only of be rejected. But we think that the estimate of concealed income at Rs. 13,154 is rather excessive. Considering the amount of depreciation allowed in earlier years and which might be available with the assessee and also the availability of some saving of earlier years for investment purposes, we will estimate the concealed income at Rs. 5,000 (Rupees five thousand only). So penalty is leviable only for the amount of Rs.5,000. So we fix the penalty leviable at Rs. 5,000. 5. The departmental appeal is therefore allowed in part. The cross objection of the assessee is dismissed.
-
1980 (10) TMI 101 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... , the explanation for change-over offered by the assessee is logical. 24. For these reasons we cannot say there is any concealment. We cannot say that the income belongs to the assessee-firm because there could be an honest difference of opinion on this point. The evidences are natural and it could belong either to the assessee-firm or to the banking firm. The assessee thought it belonged to the banking firm. We do not think that this would amount to concealment. Even if the evidence show that this belongs only to the assessee-firm, since all the materials were before the ITO, on the basis of the decision of the Madras High Court quoted above, there is no concealment. The penalties have to be cancelled. 25. Shri Rangamani had also taken a ground on jurisdiction. He had submitted that the penalty orders were passed by the IAC on 22nd Nov., 1978 when he ceased to have jurisdiction. Since we are deciding the issue on merit, we leave this issue open. 26. The appeals are allowed.
-
1980 (10) TMI 100 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... ,966 and these sales were effected through Sandeep Sales Corporation. M/s. Sandeep Sales Corporation are commission agents and as such entitled to commission on the sales effected by the assessee to the Bombay party. The commission on normal percentage allowed by the assessee comes to Rs. 19,798.32. but the assessee in order to protect the interest of the business provided the sum of Rs. 20,000 but instead of making the payment to the commission agents, retained the amount so that the realisation becomes easy. On this set of facts, we are of the opinion that the AAC was justified in allowing the provision made particularly taking into consideration that the assessee is maintaining books of account on mercantile basis. The appeal of the Revenue is, therefore, dismissed. 5. In so far as the cross objection of the assessee is concerned, we find that it seeks no relief and, therefore, is dismissed as infructuous. 6. Both, the appeal as well as the cross objection, are dismissed.
-
1980 (10) TMI 99 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... bad in law, yet, for the sake of argument, if s. 18 were to be considered as available to CWT, it is found that the CWT did not give any notice to the assessee of being heard for purpose of imposition of penalty as required clearly u/s 18(2) of the Act. He also did not give a finding of his own that delay was without reasonable cause. The imposition of penalty for each of the years under appeal by the CWT is, therefore, in gross violation of principles of natural justice and this violation strikes at the very root of the proceedings. The order of the CWT, therefore, for both the years, on this score has to be and is struck down. 23. In the result, the common order of the Commr. made u/s 25(2) dt. 16th January, 1979, relating to penalty for delay in furnishing the returns, for the asst. yrs. 1969-70 and 1970-71 is entirely cancelled on each of the grounds independently mentioned and in its place orders made by the WTO for each year under appeal restored. 24. Appeals allowed.
-
1980 (10) TMI 98 - ITAT CALCUTTA-E
... ...
... ... ..... ow standard deduction under s. 16(i) on the amount of compensation that was received by the assessee. 5. Having heard the submissions of both the parties and after considering the reasons given by the AAC, we are of the opinion that the AAC has done nothing wrong in directing the ITO to allow standard deduction under s. 16(1) on the pension received by the assessee. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the departmental appeal. 6. Coming to the allowability of standard deduction under s. 16(i) on the amount of compensation, we are of the opinion that when the amount was paid in lieu of salary, the assessee was also entitled to standard deduction under s. 16(i) on the amount of compensation received by him. We, therefore, direct the ITO to allow standard deduction under s. 16(i) on the amount of compensation too, subject to maximum allowable under that section. 7. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed, while the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
1980 (10) TMI 97 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A
... ...
... ... ..... t be less than ten per cent. But shall not exceed one and a half times the amount by which the tax actually paid during the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year under the provisions of Chapter XVII-C falls short of (1) seventy-five per cent. Of the assessed tax as defined in sub-s. (5) of s. 215, or (2) Where a notice under s. 210 was issued to the assessee, the amount payable thereunder whichever is less Thus, if would appeal that although the assessee has not paid full tax under s. 212(3A) he can get aware with the default as long as the advance tax paid is more than the tax demanded under s. 210. The lacuna was noticed and has been set right w.e.f. the asst. yr. 1978-79. Thus, on the facts of the case we have to hold that the assessee is not liable for penalty under s. 273(a). In this view of the matter the cancellation of the penalty by the ld. CIT (Appeals) is upheld. 5. The Departmental appeal is dismissed and the assessee s cross objection allowed.
-
1980 (10) TMI 96 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
... ...
... ... ..... inging forward the unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier year, we find nothing wrong with this direction also. If there is any absorbed depreciation of the earlier years, the assessee is entitled to such carry forwards as may be permitted by law. 10. Coming to the assessee s cross-objection regarding the grant of depreciation allowance for the full year we find that this plea is in consonance with IT Rule and has to be upheld Calcutta High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Wilh Wilhelmsen (1978) 115 ITR 10 (Cal) and the Board s Circular relied upon by the ld. Deptl. Rep. are with reference to the old law before the placing of IT Rule 5 on the statute book and therefore they are not helpful in deciding the issue The assessee is entitled to succeed o this ground in the cross objection. The assessees cross objection on this ground is allowed. 11. In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
-
1980 (10) TMI 95 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
... ...
... ... ..... IT (A). 10. Having regard to the income and status of the assessee as a Film Artist, we hold that the estimate of personal expenses by the Deptl. authorities at Rs. 30,000 is quite reasonable and does not call for any interference. We also hold that in the absence of direct evidence, the estimate of agricultural income at Rs. 20,000 is to be accepted as reasonable. This bring us to the ground against the addition of Rs. 23,500. There being no dispute that the assessee had withdrawn a sum of about Rs. 49,000 from his bank account during previous year, same account of furniture and furnishings is not available, we are inclined to accept the assessee s claim that the said amount be treated out of the earlier withdrawals, so much so that we hold that the sum of Rs. 23,500 being deposits in the bank cannot be treated as unexplained investment. The addition of Rs. 47,355 sustained by the CIT (A) is, therefore, reduced by Rs. 23,500. 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1980 (10) TMI 94 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
... ...
... ... ..... led to succeed on a plain interpretation of s. 5(1)(xxxii) of the WT Act. According to the provisions of s. 5(1)(xxxii) of the WT Act, as stated earlier, the interest of the assessee in the assets of the industrial undertaking belonging to the firm in which she was a partner had to be exempted excluding, of course, the value of land and building as covered by any other clause of s. 5(1). In the assessee s case, no part of the land or building has been exempted under any other cl. of s. 5(1). Therefore, in our opinion, the lower authorities had erred in refusing the assessee s claim for exemption in respect of the value of such land and building owned by the firm in which the assessee was a partner. In the circumstances, the orders of the AAC for both the years require to be reversed. They are accordingly reversed. The WTO is directed to re-compute the assessee s claim for the value of such land and building in the hands of the assessee. 6. The assessee s appeals are allowed.
-
1980 (10) TMI 93 - ITAT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... tandard rent and that the standard rent nearly approximated to the estimate made by the ITO and CIT(A) of the fair rental value. The fair rental value cannot be estimated in isolation but in the light of the relevant legal regulations and principles laid down by the Supreme Court and by the legislature. Having regard to the various decisions of the Tribunal relied upon by the assessee as also the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, we, therefore, reverse the action of the lower authorities and direct the ITO to recompute the value of the perquisite in the hands of the Director for the two years under appeal on the basis of the municipal ratable value. We, therefore, direct the recomputation of the value of the perquisite in the light of the above observations and allow the appeals . 7. From any view of the matter, therefore, the reassessments cannot stand were rightly cancelled by the AAC. 8. The departmental appeals are, therefore, dismissed.
-
1980 (10) TMI 92 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... st created by these presents as a trust for public and charitable purposes shall not be affected in any manner. 4. After a perusal of this proviso we are not left in any doubt that the Trust which was intended to be a public charitable Trust gave out illustrations of objects to carry out the dominant intention. If any object was found to be offensive to the dominant intention, the same shall be self eliminated. In this view we do not find that AAC correctly advised himself that the trust was not a public charitable trust because one of the sub-objects was that there was provision of rendering to an individual or his family for personal needs. We vacate his finding and direct that trust be considered as a public charitable trust, entitled to claim under s. 11. Since we have held the trust to be public charitable trust entitled to claim exemption under s. 11, we refrain from recording our finding as respects ground No. 3. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
1980 (10) TMI 91 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... 000, the Revenue cannot take a different figure of opening stock for the second period. The proposition put forward by Shri Kappor is sound and as long as the assessee s version about the profit for the first period being Rs. 50,465 holds the field, the Revenue cannot blow hot and cold. There is also another angle which will support this conclusion. If the opening stock of the assessee for the second period is valued differently, as the ITO has done, it also follows that the same will be the figure of closing stock as at the close of the first period and if the figure of opening stock is reduced by Rs. 51,429, the same adjustment will have to be made for determining the profit of the first period. The profit for the first period as stated earlier, already stands finally determined at the figure disclosed by the assessee. In this view of the matter, I accept the assessee s contention and delete the disallowance Rs.51,429. 3. The appeal of the assessee succeeds and is allowed.
-
1980 (10) TMI 90 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... tional ground sought for by the Deptl. Rep. In my opinion, permitting of such an additional ground would amount to let the Revenue file a new appeal on this new issue. Revenue has lost its chance by not taking up the ground of appeal within the prescribed time while filing the nine appeals under consideration and thus the finding of the AAC has become final. 7. In view of the position noted above it is correctly contended on behalf of the assessee that it will be academic to deal with the Revenue s challenge about the reopening of the assessments being valid and proper. It is settled law that the Tribunal need not decide academic issues. I therefore, do not propose to deal with the arguments pressed by both the sides in respect of proceedings taken under s. 147(a) or with the alternative plea of the Revenue to consider these under s. 147(b) for 4 asst. yrs. 1974-75 to 1977-78 in the case of Shri Nanak Chand. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue fails and is dismissed.
-
1980 (10) TMI 89 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... the Revenue. I do not think that the Deptl. Rep. could be allowed to re-write the order of the ITO and thus wash out an illegality committed by him in framing the assessment. Sec. 292B cannot be invoked in my view to wash out illegalities committed by an ITO. The section clearly provides that the proceedings under consideration are in substance and effect be in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the IT Act. Now the proceedings under consideration are the one commenced under s. 148 and it is the legality of this action which is called in question by the assessee. The Tribunal cannot refuse to take note of the plea of illegality caused by the ITO and the Revenue cannot seek shelter under s. 292B. Consequently. I hold that the proceedings under s. 148 were not validly started for the asst. yr. 1977-78 as well and hence the assessment framed thereafter is also invalid and it is quashed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee succeeds and is allowed.
-
1980 (10) TMI 88 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... . Srivastava, ld. D.R. placed reliance on the order of the IAC and stated that the Department had already made a reference to the High Court which is pending. On the other hand, Shri H.P. Agrawal, the ld. counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the earlier order of the Tribunal and the impugned order of the CIT(A). The assessee also placed on the paper book a copy of the order dt. 18th May, 1973 of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 966 and 967 for asst. yrs. 1965-66, 1966-67 which is the basic order and the copy of order dt. 21st July, 1977 of the Tribunal in ITA No. 372 of 1976-77 for the asst. yr. 1974-75. We have considered the rival submissions. Respectfully following the earlier orders of the Tribunal in which the view consistently taken is that the amount of interest in question could not have been taxed on the basis of accrual, we find no warrant for any interference with the orders of the CIT(A). 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the Department falls and is dismissed.
-
1980 (10) TMI 87 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... nder s. 80G. The assessee has claimed deduction of the expenditure in question as a part of the Labour Welfare Expenses. In terms of the dictum of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Malayalam plantations Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140 (SC) the expression for the purposes of the business being wide, may comprehend, many other acts incidental to the carrying on of a business. Accordingly we are of the view that having regard to the principles of ordinary commercial trading, the expenditure in question is not a capital expenditure but Revenue expenditure and is part of the labour welfare activities of the assessee. We, also hold that it was laid out by the assessee wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business and is, therefore, rightly admissible for deduction under s. 37 of the Act. The ld. AAC was, therefore, quite justified in allowing the same. We therefore, find no warrant for interference with his order. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue fails and is dismissed.
-
1980 (10) TMI 86 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... n respect of asst. yr. 1977-78. There is no warrant either in law or in rules to presume each Form No. 50 filed for each of the branches as a self-contained one and as invoking the provisions of s. 285 of the IT Act, 1961. What invokes the penalty provisions is the act of the assessee to file the Form No. 50 late and such delay has to be computed with reference to the totality of the work and not with reference to the branch-wise work. 7. We are, however, not convinced of the assessee s reasons for filing the forms late. Being busy in the audit does not constitute a reasonable cause for late compliance with the statutory provisions. There is as such ample justification for invoking the provisions of s. 285 by the authorities below. We accordingly sustain the penalty of Rs. 1,196 in respect of asst. yr. 1976-77 and of Rs. 498 in respect of asst. yr. 1977-78. 8. In the result, ITA Nos. 1222 and 1229 (Alld)/1979 are hereby dismissed, whereas the rest of the appeals are allowed.
-
1980 (10) TMI 85 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... d. Rep. for the Dept. the entire share of profit/interest received by these two ladies from the said firm was includible in the total income of the assessee. The ld. counsel for the assessee on the other hand, strongly relied on the order of the AAC and justified his action. 4. On due consideration of the rival submissions of the parties, I do not find any substance in the submission made on behalf of the Revenue. Sec. 64 (vi) talks about the inclusive of the income arising from the assets transferred by the assessee to her daughter-in-law. In the instant case, the assessee had gifted various amounts mentioned in the aforesaid order of the AAC. Therefore, it would not correct to include the entire share of profits/interest of these two ladies from the said firm in the total income of the assessee. In this view of the matter, I do not find any flavour the order of the AAC. I would, therefore, uphold the order of the AAC under appeal. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
........
|
