|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 97 Records
-
1979 (5) TMI 37 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... t. Parthas Trust has already provided in their books a reserve towards liability of all its employees (including those of Attingal till 17th Aug., 1973). It was informed that they are constituting an approved gratuity fund, wherein they had no objection for the continuance of gratuity scheme for the employees of Attingal beyond 17th Aug., 1973. Resolved that the employees gratuity fund to be constituted by them is adopted as the gratuity fund of Parthas Textiles, Attingal also and contributions wherever demanded shall be made to the fund, towards gratuity of employees of Parthas Textiles, Attingal. 17. We have, therefore, to hold that the ITO was justified in the present case in disallowing the claim of Rs. 4,957 towards gratuity provision of the ground that the prescribed conditions were not satisfied and the AAC was justified in upholding the same. 18. The result is ITA No. 510/Coch/77-78 is treated as allowed for statistical purpose and ITA No. 10/Coch/77-78 is dismissed.
-
1979 (5) TMI 36 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... conclusion that the returned profit is acceptable. It is only because we thought that it conforms to a reasonable standard in estimates of profit in this line of business, particularly when the ITO or AAC has not questioned its reasonableness. So, we find no scope for disallowance under s. 40A(3). That disallowance is also, therefore, deleted. The fact that the representative of the assessee has before the AAC given a statement that s. 40A(3) is attracted to these things does not mean that disallowance should be made and sustained. What the assessee s representative stated is that for purposes of s. 40A(3) there are three entries in the accounts showing cash payments exceeding Rs. 2,500. Whether those are to be added back in the computation of business income is another matter depending on the nature, manner and method of assessment, so this disallowance has also to be deleted. 12. The appeal is allowed. All the additions, by way of add-backs and disallowance s are deleted.
-
1979 (5) TMI 35 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... unal took the view that the order of rectification was not appealable. On a writ, the Calcutta High Court held that in the case of death of the Karta of a HUF governed by the Mitakshara Law, in order to ascertain the lineal descendants a notional partition of the smaller HUF headed by the deceased s so was also contemplated and in such partition son s wife would be entitle to a share equal to that of her son. We have already observed authority and we have not been referred to any other authority by the Revenue to the contrary. 5. On the facts of the same, we direct the ACED to recompute the taxable estate of the principal laid down by High Court Calcutta High Court in the above noted case within one month of receipt of this order. If the ACED period, directed about, it shall be assumed that the Accountable Person s version that aggregation could be only Rs. 19, 858 is correct aggregated amount of Rs. 68,666. 6. For the purpose of statistics, this appeal is treated as allowed.
-
1979 (5) TMI 34 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... the firm in terms of s. 187(2) of the Act and only one assessment could be framed keeping in view the Full Bench judgment in the case of Nandlal Sohanlal(6). The deed reconstituting the firm in terms provided that the accounts were to date back from 1st June, 1972 in respect of the period when the firm was re-constituted and, therefore, in our view, the AAC was in error in confirming the ITO s action that the firm was not entitled to registration under s. 185(1)(a) of the Act. If some signatures or consent was required to the partnership deeds and the registration applications, necessary opportunity should have been referred to the firm and even now it is not too late, if it is so required. 11. Before parting, we like to observe that the relief giving circulars like the one issued by the CBDT No. 210/13/74 IT/A.11 dt. 19th March, 1976 should not have been ignored by the AAC and his approach on the issue cannot be said to be correct. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1979 (5) TMI 33 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... and further supported his contentions by placing reliance upon the ratio of the Bombay High Court decision in the case of Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd.(4).and another decision of the same Court in the case of M/s. Ballarpur Industries Ltd.(5) 6. We have given careful thought to the rival submissions and insofar as the contention of the Revenue regarding the first ground is concerned, we think it makes no change because we have held in the case of M/s Patiala Flour Mills Co.(P)Ltd. Patiala in STA Nos. 2 and 3 of 1976-77 decided on 30th Sept., 1978 that income by way of dividend refers to gross dividend income and not the net amount. This is now further supported by the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of A.V. Thomas. The ground is, therefore, decided against the Revenue. 7. The second ground also has to be rejected and decided against the Revenue in view of our decision in the above case and the case law now cited by the assessee. 8. Revenue s appeal dismissed.
-
1979 (5) TMI 32 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B
... ...
... ... ..... al income loss and (ii) determination of the sum payable by to the assessee on that basis and in the present case in appeal before us the assessment was made as also tax dues determined on 29th March, 73 and accordingly the assessment was made under s. 144 of the Act was valid, legal and binding on the assessee and not barred by limitation within the meaning of s. 153 of the Act and, therefore, the fresh assessment made under s. 143(3)/146 of the Act was also valid, legal and binding on the assessee. At best, it can be that the ITO was obliged to have served on the assessee a copy of the computation of tax due as per prescribed form IT. 30/I.T.N.S.-150 too, the absence of which in this case now becomes a mere formality and of academic interest. 15. In the light of our above findings, the rest of the contentions/grounds raised by the Revenue become academic. The order of the AAC is set aside on this Court. 16. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue succeeds and is accepted.
-
1979 (5) TMI 31 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A
... ...
... ... ..... furnished that it is only in one year the said firm received income from commission. There was no commission business done by the firm either before or subsequently. It is a stray business carried on in one year only. In calculating the goodwill on the basis of super-profits method such income should not be taken into account. It is well known that in the super-profits method the normal profits or the usual profits earned year after year should be considered and not profits from a business which is carried on in one year only. Thus, if we exclude the sum of Rs. 28,000 what remains really is a negative figure even according to the calculation of the Asstt. Controller. We, therefore hold that there is no goodwill of the said firm and consequently there is no share of goodwill so far as the deceased is concerned, which has to be included. Accordingly, the sum of Rs. 1,863 should be excluded from the principal value of the assets. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.
-
1979 (5) TMI 30 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
... ...
... ... ..... laced before us, we are of the opinion that the ITO under law could assess in respect of his share from AOP. without any assessment being framed on AOP as he did in respect of capital gain on plot but once he had exercised the option to assess the share from AOP as such he was not justified in disallowing the loss to the assessee from such AOP in respect of contract work. The ITO has not considered the claim of the assessee pertaining to the loss from AOP on merit in course of assessment as he has only passed his order that the loss could not be claimed by the assessee in his individual capacity and in case it was to be claimed in that capacity then the same could be termed as AOP or U.R.F. The assessee s appeal is restored to the file of the ITO to adjudicate the matter regarding admissibility of loss from contract work in the name of M/s Balaram D. Thakar after verification and on merit. 4. In the result the assessee s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
-
1979 (5) TMI 29 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
Business Expenditure, Previous Year, Superannuation Fund ... ... ... ... ..... hey were made under duress ? To our mind, whatever may be the circumstances illegal payments will continue to be illegal and since there was no obligation to carry on business illegally, we are inclined to hold that irrespective of the purpose the payments made in this manner cannot be allowed as deduction under section 37. However, we agree with Shri Khare, the assessee s counsel, that the payments so made should be taken at Rs. 55,404 as found by the Sarkaria Commission. The departmental authorities have not found any other payments made illegally to the Tamil Nadu Government. In the circumstances, there is no justification for taking the entire amount of Rs. 1,02,200 paid to Shri Kalidas or anything more on estimate as payments made by the assessee illegally. We, therefore, hold that the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 55,404 only in Agro Aviation Division is justified. 10. In the result, the assessee s appeal is partly allowed while the departmental appeal is dismissed.
-
1979 (5) TMI 28 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... before us a photostat copy of the passport from which it is seen that Smt. Indira Murthy, who left India in Sept., 1971, arrived in India on 1st Jan., 1974 and again left from Madras (India) on 29th Jan., 1974. In the affidavit it has been stated that she left India in Feb., 1974. It is stated to be a slight mistake. The learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that, in view of the fact that the CIT did not give sufficient time to the assessee to produce the affidavit and the passport from America, the same could not be produced him and that Smt. Indira Murthy has not come to India thereafter and has become a citizen of America. Having heard the parties, we are satisfied that the signature put by the Power of Attorney Holder on behalf of Smt. Indira Murthy in the application for registration is thus in order. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT and restore the order of the ITO granting registration to the assessee firm. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1979 (5) TMI 27 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... untarily. We, therefore, find substance in the argument of Sri Jain that the assessee could not file return in time being under the belief that his wealth was below taxable limit. But then the question arises whether this belief can continue on the part of the assessee even after the service of the notice under s. 17. When the notice was served under s. 17 on the assessee for the year under consideration, the assessee was under legal obligation to comply with that and, thereafter the assessee could not plead either his ignorance of law or his belief that his wealth was below taxable limit. The notice issued under s. 17 ought to have been complied with by the assessee. We therefore, hold that default under s. 18(1)(a) will commence from the date of service of the notice issued under s. 17 to the assessee. No penalty would be levied for the period commencing from 26th Feb., 1972 up to the date of service of the notice under s. 17. 4. In the result the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1979 (5) TMI 26 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... i Kapoor argues before us that right to interest income amounting to Rs. 6,121 arose to Kumari Jaishree at the end of the year when the said amount was credited to her account in the books of Smt. Usha Jajoo and, therefore, the entire income was assessable in her hands and not in the hands of the assessee under s. 64(1)(v). We agree with Shri Kapoor that in the circumstances of the case the better view to be taken is that the entire interest income of Rs. 6,121 had arisen to Kumari Jaishree at the end of the year when actual credit entry was passed in the books of Smt. Usha Jajoo. During the accounting year, it is difficult to say that any definite interest income arose to Kumari Jaishree. We, therefore accept the assessee s appeal and reject the contention of the Revenue that interest income accrue day to day and hence is ascertainable on any day during the year. A sum of Rs. 4,785 will be excluded from the assessment of the assessee. 5. In the result the appeal is allowed.
-
1979 (5) TMI 25 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... force in this submission. It is clear on going through the relevant paper that the unrecorded receipt of Rs. 59,170 has been distributed to the partners and the amount found by the ITO is referable to that income. So the addition for 1973-74 will stand deleted. 5. As far as the addition for 1974-75 is concerned, the assessee again explained it with reference to the income disclosed under the disclosure scheme by the firm. However, Shri Harne s objection is that for the asst. yr. 1974-75 the income disclosed by the firm was only Rs. 10,210. The assessee s share of 40 per cent therein cannot explain the investment of Rs. 11,010 made during this year. However, as we pointed out the income of 1973-74 was nearly Rs. 60,000 and that has been withdrawn by the partners. The availability of those funds cannot be denied. We, therefore, think that no addition should have been made for the asst. yr. 1974-75 also. 6. In the result, both the appeals are allowed. The additions are deleted.
-
1979 (5) TMI 24 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Incentive Production Scheme - Exemption notification - Auxiliary duty of excise (now Special Duty) - Interpretation - Valuation - Redetermination of assessable value - Taxation laws - Exemption clause - Canons of interpretation - Writ jurisdiction
-
1979 (5) TMI 23 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Confiscation and penalty - Goods for export - Confiscation proceedings - Offence - Civil suit - Penalty - Writ jurisdiction
-
1979 (5) TMI 22 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Refund - Levy held illegal - Blended yarn ... ... ... ... ..... es and the amounts collected in pursuance of the above unauthorised and illegal demands should be refunded in consequence of the decision of this Court. Moreover, the applications for refund have not been dismissed by the respondents on the ground that they are barred by limitation. The counter affidavit raises a plea of laches which is hardly tenable, considering that the petitioner has been throughout urging against the demand made on it in one forum after another. This contention of Sri Kataria cannot also be accepted. 16. In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed. There will be direction to the respondents to refund to the petitioner the additional duty that has been already levied and recovered from the petitioner, for the period 30-10-1967 to 24-11-1967 in the case of the Rajpura Unit and for the period 1-2-1967 to 17-9-1967 in the case of the Nagda Unit less the amounts that may have been already refunded, if any. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1979 (5) TMI 21 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
House Property, Partnership Deed, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... ppears to be a finding of fact but that finding of fact depends on the true and correct interpretation of several clauses of the partnership deed including the cls. 6 and 12 which fell for consideration before the Tribunal. It is a settled principle of law that the interpretation of material clauses of material documents is a question of law. The answer to the questions referred to above depended on the interpretation of the material clauses of the partnership deed as well as s. 26 of the Act. In our opinion, therefore, a question of law does arise out of the order of the Tribunal and we, therefore, direct the Tribunal to state the facts and refer the first question of law set out above for answer by this court. The question No. 2 is covered by question No. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner also does not seriously press for its reference. In the result, these applications are allowed the rules are made absolute. Parties are to bear their own costs. D. PATHAK J.--I agree.
-
1979 (5) TMI 20 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Gift To Spouse ... ... ... ... ..... R 308 (Punj) it was stated It is significant that before the Tribunal it was not urged by the department that the gift was not made by Hari Chand as Hari Chand but as Hindu undivided family. The description of Hari Chand as karta is, therefore, beside the point. In both the cases, the finding was that the gift was made by the donor not as karta of the HUF but as individual to individual. In the present case, if the gift was made as karta of the HUF, then the provisions of s. 5(1)(viii) are not attracted, because there cannot be any spouse of the HUF as such as contemplated therein. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal was wrong in law in holding that the gift in favour of the wife by the karta of the assessee-HUF attracted the provisions of section 5(1)(viii) of the Act. Thus, the question is answered in the negative,i.e., in favour of the revenue. Since there is no representation on behalf of the assessee, there is no order as to costs. RAJENDRA NATH MITTAL J.--I agree.
-
1979 (5) TMI 19 - KERALA HIGH COURT
A Partner, Firm Registration, High Court, Income Tax Act, Partnership Deed ... ... ... ... ..... be mentioned, there were other persons as partners and, therefore, the objection as to validity earlier indicated at the end of my discussion of Dhandhania s case 1940 8 ITR 369 (Pat) would not come into play ...... As we stated, the decision is directly in point and even if the question of the validity of the partnership deed by reason of Krishnadas having signed twice in the document were to arise for consideration, we would have been prepared to hold that this circumstance by itself, on the facts and circumstances disclosed, would not invalidate the partnership document or disclose a sufficient ground for cancellation of registration. In the result, we answer the question referred in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. There will be no order as to costs. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of this court will be communicated to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, as required by law.
-
1979 (5) TMI 18 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Allowable Expenditure, Business Expenditure, Penalty For Breach ... ... ... ... ..... the appeal of the assessee was allowed and the addition of the security amount made towards the income was deleted. Mr. Awasthy, learned counsel for the revenue, argued that the forfeiture of security amounting to Rs. 65,318 was due to breach of the terms of the licence for auction, and, therefore, the Tribunal was not right in law in allowing the sum of Rs. 65,318.40 deposited by the assessee as the security as permissible expenditure in computing its income for the assessment year 1969-70. We do not find any force in this contention. The finding given by the learned Tribunal in its order dated 29th October, 1974, is that the security deposited was adjusted towards the arrears of licence fee and the same was not a forfeiture by way of penalty for the breach of any term of the licence, etc. On such a finding, no question of law, as sought by the revenue to be referred to this court arises. Consequently, we dismiss the application with costs. RAJENDRA NATH MITTAL J.--I agree.
|
