|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 150 Records
-
1976 (4) TMI 109 - ITAT MADRAS-A
... ...
... ... ..... uring has been said not to connote a benefit that endures in the sense that for a good number of years it relieves the assessee of a revenue payment. In the present case, if the assessee continues to stay in the premises, he may not have to pay any rent for the same. If a monthly or annual rent is paid that will be clearly a Revenue expenditure. The sum paid under clause (2) of the lease deed cannot be said to be a rent paid for the premises with a floor area of nearly 8,000 Sq. ft. in a busy locality of Bangalore Virtually thus the assessee by making these payments gets relieved of a Revenue payment monthly or annually for some period. This is clearly Revenue expenditure. There is no dispute that the amount has been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business. We, therefore, hold that the two amounts of Rs. 1,62,835/- and Rs. 50,937/- are allowable as Revenue expenditure for the asst. yrs. 1968-69 and 1969-70. 24. The assessee rsquo s appeals are allowed.
-
1976 (4) TMI 108 - ITAT MADRAS-A
... ...
... ... ..... Rs. 35,180 being the aggregate of the peak of the credits appearing in the handloom account and R.L.M.S. Loan account in the books of the assessee. It is significant that the assessee had so offered within a week after the filing of the return and before any probe was commenced to be made by the Department. This is certainly a circumstances which has to be taken note of and in view of the principle laid down in CIT vs. Ramdas Pharmacy, referred to above it cannot be said that the assessee had concealed its income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. 5. Even apart from what has been stated above, the Department has not established the income nature of the aforesaid sum, which has been included in the assessment. The onus of establishing the same is on the Department and the Department cannot be said to have discharged the said onus. We, therefore, hold that penalty is not exigible. We, accordingly, cancel the penalty. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1976 (4) TMI 107 - ITAT MADRAS-A
... ...
... ... ..... ssee had thus clearly established that the credits standing in the name of Ramakrishna Menon in his account in the books of the firm, Rajalakshmi Motor Service, represented borrowings from Ramakrishna Menon. It is, therefore, not correct to hold that such credits represented concealed income. 8. Regarding the two credits of Rs. 1,000 under dt. 13th Jan., 1968 and 16th Jan., 1968 it will be seen that the assessee, by his letter dt. 2nd Jan., 1970, had agreed to the same being treated as income. It is significant that he was not able to say from whom such borrowings were made. We, therefore, hold that the IAC was justified in treating this sum of Rs. 2,000 as concealed income. 9. As regards the additional ground sought to be raised, the assessee rsquo s learned counsel after referring to the date of the order of the IAC did not press the application. 10. In the result, we reduce the penalty to Rs. 2,000. The appeal is allowed in part and the miscellaneous petition is dismissed.
-
1976 (4) TMI 106 - ITAT MADRAS-A
... ...
... ... ..... d the estimate. As this was based on adequate material on penalty should be levied. The Departmental Representative supported the orders of the authorities below and also pointed out that the basis now given before the Tribunal was not urged at the earlier occasion. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned for a date to have the matter verified and it has been seen from the firm rsquo s record that the plea of the assessee has been substantiated in respect of A. Abdul Shukoor and Co. In respect of the other firm, that firm did not make any estimate in September, but had made an estimate only on 28th Feb., 1968 at Rs. 7 laksh. 5. Having carefully considered the matter, we are of the opinion that the estimated filed by the assessee cannot be said to be unsupported by any material. As it was a bonafide estimate at that time, we hod that the penalty provisions are not attracted on the facts and circumstances of this case. We would, therefore, allow the appeal and cancel the penalty.
-
1976 (4) TMI 105 - ITAT MADRAS-A
... ...
... ... ..... assessee need not file the returns, then, he cannot be penalised for the late filing of the returns. The assessee himself, after taking steps had filed the returns voluntarily. According to the assessee, when he came to know that the share in the reserves of the Sivakasi firms would exceed the limit, he had filed the returns. The assessee is stated to be prompt in payment of taxes and for the four assessment years in question, he had paid large amount of tax for income-tax assessment and subsequently he had obtained large refunds. So, it cannot be stated that the delay was because of the assessee wanted to postpone the payment of wealth-tax dues. We agree with the findings of the AAC that the assessee had reasonable cause in not filing the returns within due dates. Considering the circumstances of the case, we find that these are not fit cases for the levy of penalty. As such, the findings of the AAC are confirmed. 5. In the result, all the Departmental appeals are dismissed.
-
1976 (4) TMI 104 - ITAT MADRAS-A
... ...
... ... ..... not amount to such amount being the concealed income of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1970-71. Simply because this amount was subjected to tax in the year 1970-71 will not be sufficient to conclude that this was the concealed income of the assessee for 1970-71. According to the assessee, he was not aware of the inflation in the cash balance as it was made by a clerk. According to the AAC, the opening cash balance had been inflated without any entry in the cash book and such cash had definitely gone into the balance and utilised for it. However, there is no finding by the AAC that the concealment was during 1970-71. Admittedly, the cash credit was on 1st April, 1970 and if at all, it has to be treated as the income of the assessee, it was only in respect of asst. yr. 1971-72. Since this cannot be treated as the concealed income of the assessee for 1970-71, the levy of penalty cannot be supported. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the levy of penalty of Rs. 7,929 is cancelled.
-
1976 (4) TMI 103 - ITAT MADRAS-A
... ...
... ... ..... delivery, the transaction is clearly a speculative one and the loss has to be treated as a speculative loss. 8. The alternative contention raised by the learned Chartered Accountant for the assessee cannot also be accepted. In the Madras High Court decision reported in 96 ITR 353 at pp. 363 and 364, this contention was considered and it was held that the loss incurred in respect of a similar transaction did constitute loss in speculative business. The mere fact that out of the four contracts, the assessee completed three contracts will not take away the nature of the transaction in the fourth contract inasmuch as no delivery had been effected in the contract in question and the settlement was effected otherwise than by delivery and long after the delivery time was over. Under such circumstances, the contention of the learned Departmental Representative is accepted and the finding of the AAC is reversed and that of the ITO is restored. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1976 (4) TMI 102 - ITAT MADRAS-A
... ...
... ... ..... uch application was filed beyond the period of due date. The delay is admitted but the question is whether such delay was due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. The assessee is an aged lady and also stated to be of ill-health. She has to go to Madurai to file the return or she has to give particulars to the auditors to prepare the return. The fact that an application for extention of time for filing the return is filed itself shows the bonafide of the assessee. After the end of December, 1972, there was only a delay of one month. This is stated to be because she had to go over to Madurai, Collect the particulars and furnish the return. Under such circumstances, the delay cannot be stated to be due to wanton or wilful act of the assessee. Taking into consideration of the case, we are of the view that the delay has been explained and there is no case for levy of penalty. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the levy of penalty of Rs. 2,730 is cancelled.
-
1976 (4) TMI 101 - ITAT MADRAS-A
... ...
... ... ..... he delivered to the three parties were not delivered and in respect of the contracts, there was settlement and because of non-delivery, the transactions will have to be treated as speculative transactions. However, because of the price rise, the assessee had sold the 870 bags at a higher rate and settlement was effected. The subsequent sales are sales in the normal course of business an the profits that arise to the assessee cannot be treated as speculation profits. If only the assessee got speculation profits, this speculation loss can be set off. Since the assessee got only business profits in respect of the 870 bags, such profits cannot be set off against the speculation loss. Under such circumstances, the treatment of the payment of price difference of Rs. 11,133 by the lower authorities as speculation loss has to be confirmed. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed in respect of the first claim and dismissed in respect of the second claim. The appeal is allowed in part.
-
1976 (4) TMI 100 - ITAT MADRAS-A
... ...
... ... ..... an income which was concealed. On the other hand, from the information available it would appear that the assessee was assessed on a total income of about Rs. 11,545 in 1962-63 an he had been having income though below the taxable limit in the subsequent years. This coupled with the fact that the assessee had the money obtained on the mortgage of the property to the extent of Rs. 15,000. It could have given the assessee the necessary amount for investment. The rejection of explanation may be good enough for purposes of assessment but not for the levy of penalty. It is insufficient without any other evidence to rebut the claim of the assessee. Considering all the circumstances, we are of the opinion that on the facts of this case, the assessee has offered a probable explanation and that no case has been made out by the Revenue to show that there was income with was concealed. Accordingly, we hold that no penalty is leviable. The appeal is allowed and the penalty is cancelled.
-
1976 (4) TMI 99 - ITAT MADRAS-A
... ...
... ... ..... that no question of law arises on the above order of the Tribunal. It is now well settled that an item such as route value or goodwill cannot be single taken for purposes of computing the capital gains. The Tribunal held as a matter of fact that what was transferred was the business as a whole. The only question left was to value the business when it became the business of the company. Whether as route value or as goodwill it is not an item of tangible asset and did not form part of the book value. Such an item which did not appear in the books had to be valued for purposes of capital gains. When the business became the business of the company, it was acquired at the book value and the Tribunal took the value of this intangible asset at the value placed by the Department in the earlier proceedings as the cost of the company. This is a finding of fact based on Revenue rsquo s valuation and does not give rise to any question of law. Accordingly, the application stands rejected.
-
1976 (4) TMI 86 - ITAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... een an eminently fit case for exempting such sales just as the Government itself thought of exempting sales of Navejeevan Nilayam and Audio Visual Unit which are part of the appellants. The Government did not probably think of hitherto exempting the value of supplies of medicines, glasses, oxygen etc. Only because the appellant did not apply for exemption in the belief that it was not liable for the various reasons with which we are in agreement now and the authorities also apparently thought so for all the years. In view of the history of the institution similar exemptions granted and the exemptions granted to appellant itself, we believe that it would have been a fit case for specific exemption even if such exemption were not available for some reason or other. The appellant however in our opinion is clearly is not liable to tax under the existing laws and notifications. 20. In the result, all the six appeals are allowed in toto. Consequently, the assessment stand annulled.
-
1976 (4) TMI 85 - ITAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... d not the relief claimed in appeal. This is also the view taken by this Tribunal in TA 46/75 where the Dy. CIT sought to enhanced the turnover on an issue which was not the subject-matter of an appeal before the AAC, though the order itself had been the subject-matter on different issues. This Tribunal found that the Dy. CITs order was contrary to law in view of the clear wording of s. 32(2) of the Act. It is needless to point out that what applies to the Revenue applies to the tax-payer also. Hence the Dy. CIT could not have granted the relief even if he wanted to since he lacked jurisdiction even in view of the bar under s. 32(3) of the Act against orders which have become subject-matter of appeal. 5. The appellant rsquo s appeal could have been dismissed for any of the three reasons mentioned in the preceding paragraph. In the view we have taken it is not necessary for us to go into the merits of the issues raised in the appeals. 6. In the result the appeals are dismissed.
-
1976 (4) TMI 84 - ITAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... , the available records given sufficient scope to merit the type of treatment adopted by the authorities. We have ample opportunities to the counsel to furnish any other date etc. in support and he pleaded lack of any data, proof etc. We fell that the treatment adopted by the lower an authorities in the remaining case does not merit disturbance. 12. The actual position of final assessable turnover results to be as under . 1965-66 1966-67 Disputed Turnover 1,67,264.00 80,050.00 Deleted as per paras 10 and 11 supra 22,781.00 37,500.00 Resultant omissions sustained 1,44,483.00 42,550.00 13. We desired to know whether the appellants could file lsquo C rsquo declaration forms for any of these disputed dealings. The learned counsel presented his inability to present any lsquo C rsquo form at this distant date. Consequently the disputed dealings have to be assessed at 10 per cent as they are not covered by valid declaration forms. 14. In result, both the appeals are allowed in part.
-
1976 (4) TMI 82 - ITAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... ioned in Entry 8. This entry has ocular instruments involving vision. Binoculars involve the ocular element involving vision and they require the use of both the eyes in securing such vision. We therefore, find that the technical and commercial usage feature sufficiently indicate that the instruments under dispute fall within the meaning of lsquo binoculars rsquo occurring in Entry 8 of the 1st Sch. r/w s. 3(2) of TNGST Act. The treatment adopted in respect of them is resultantly found to be in order. 17. Considered in any angle either in technological scientific usages, common/commercial parlances, dictionary meaning, details in encyclopedia and technological reference books, clarified settled position by authorities. Crystallised usages from common parlance adopted in ISI Standards, we find the treatment adopted by the lower authorities is in order. We do not find any afflicting or noteworthy basis of date of date to merit out interference. We therefore, dismiss the appeal.
-
1976 (4) TMI 81 - ITAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... 0 ingots, pointed out a stock discrepancies in the shop inspection is treated as 600 kgs at 20 kgs. per ingot. Applying Rs. 7 per kg. for the quantity of 7,600 kgs. the rough estimate works out to Rs. 53,200 in value, Making allowance for other variations and possible omissions, we estimate the value of the unexplained quantities at Rs. 60,000 in lump sum. 14. In regard to the penalty levy, we find that the shop inspection evidence omitted transactions to an extent of 600 kgs. The discrepancies made out on the basis of above position etc. also are indicative of prevalance of omitted dealings. The appellants have however not maintained elaborate records, manufacturing accounts, etc, in support of their pleas. Taking into consideration, these extenuating aspects, we feel that a penalty of Rs. 500 would be appropriate in this instance. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Relief is granted on a turnover of Rs. 2,38,710.17 at 3-1/2 per cent and penalty of Rs. 10,000.
-
1976 (4) TMI 80 - ITAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... ffective guide to proper interpretation. In the clarifications rendered and placed before us we find that the Government itself has rendered the settled clarification and same has been communicated to the trade as well as the authorities for the purpose of enforcement. Such an administrative interpretation is also found to be factually supported as analytically considered by us in para 5 supra. 10. When read from any angle, either on factual basis or the trend of administrative interpretation or the absence of fresh facts to meriting revision, we find no scope to sustain the action adopted by the lower authorities. The factual postings clearly indicat that there is no material basis or scope for the revision. We according feel that the initial treatment in classifying the rough castings as liable to M.P. tax under s. 3 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, is factually supported and is in order. 11. In this view, we allow the appeal to the extent indicated in para 9.
-
1976 (4) TMI 79 - ITAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... the entries mentioned in a Sales Tax Act, what is relevant is not the dictionary meaning, but how those entries are understood in common parlance, specially in commercial circles. 14. In result, we find ample scope for the view that the word lsquo books rsquo covered both reading books relating to the turnover under dispute fall within the meaning of lsquo reading books rsquo or lsquo text books rsquo or both. The general treatment commonly afforded by the public in respect of them also confirms the same tread. The common parlance view also supports similar classification only. 15. When considered with the entirety of the above details materials etc. available before us, we feel that there is sufficient justification for classification of the disputed turnover as sales of reading books or text books entitling the disputed turnover for exemption within the scope of G.O. 40 Revenue dt. 6th Jan., 1969. We accordingly allow the exemption. 16. In the result the appeal is allowed.
-
1976 (4) TMI 72 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... date, he was governed by the terms of the partnership deed dated 16th July, 1969, and as such, it would not be possible to say that constitution of the firm, during the accounting period corresponding to asst. yr. 1972-73, was not evidenced by the partnership deed dated 16th July, 1969. 10. An enquiry on the exact date of birth of Sri Sureshchand cannot be made at our end. We therefore, send back the case to the ITO with the direction that he would enquire into this aspect of the matter, and in the light of the findings that he gives on this point, after taking into account such evidence as the assessee my place before him, including the certificate of birth as filed before us, the ITO may dispose of the question of registration in respect of the two years under appeal de novo in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made by us above. For statistical purposes, the Departmental appeals are treated as allowed. The cross objections are also treated as allowed.
-
1976 (4) TMI 71 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... stay rsquo , but passed at separate points of time in the light of the facts then obtaining and the rival submission then made. After all, every day cases come up in the courts when stay refused earlier, is granted later or granted earlier is revoked later. Such orders are not reviews of the earlier orders but are intended to meet the developing situation at different points of time pending the decision on the litigation. I am, therefore, of the opinion that it is not correct to suggest that the Tribunal could not have entertained the second application and passed an order thereon. Whether or not the second order is correct is not for this Court to say. Only the Hon rsquo ble High Court can pronounce a judgement on its merits. We are barred from expressing any opinion about its correctness or otherwise, for we are functus officio vis-a-vis that order. 4. In the result, I join my learned brother in rejecting the Misc. Application, but on the limited grounds as indicated above.
|
