Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 577 Records
-
2001 (3) TMI 259
Issues Involved: 1. Disallowance of late payment of ESI, P.F., etc. u/s 43B. 2. Disallowance of unpaid bottling fees u/s 43B. 3. Disallowance of depreciation on R&D assets. 4. Treatment of expenditure on replacement of transformer as capital expenditure. 5. Addition of service charges on packing material u/s 40A(2)(b). 6. Disallowance of public relation and staff welfare expenses as entertainment expenses.
Summary of Judgment:
Issue 1: Disallowance of late payment of ESI, P.F., etc. u/s 43B
The Revenue's appeal (ITA No. 1546/Jp/1995) for the assessment year 1992-93 contested the deletion of disallowances u/s 43B by the CIT(A). The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, citing decisions from other cases that payments made within the accounting year, even if beyond the due date, should be allowed as deductions. The Tribunal found no fault with the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances.
Issue 2: Disallowance of unpaid bottling fees u/s 43B
In ITA No. 1561/Jp/1995 and ITA No. 2072/Jp/1992, the assessee contested the disallowance of unpaid bottling fees u/s 43B. The Tribunal held that furnishing a bank guarantee for the unpaid amount should be treated as actual payment, thus allowing the deduction and deleting the disallowance of Rs. 6 lacs.
Issue 3: Disallowance of depreciation on R&D assets
The assessee's appeals (ITA No. 1561/Jp/1995 and ITA No. 2072/Jp/1992) contested the disallowance of depreciation on R&D assets. The Tribunal noted that the R&D assets were included in the block of assets and had not been discarded or closed. Following the concept of "block of assets" introduced w.e.f. 1st April 1988, the Tribunal allowed the depreciation and deleted the disallowance.
Issue 4: Treatment of expenditure on replacement of transformer as capital expenditure
The assessee argued that the expenditure on replacing a damaged transformer should be treated as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal agreed, citing various judicial pronouncements that replacement of worn-out parts does not bring in a new asset but maintains the efficiency of the existing setup. The Tribunal allowed the expenditure as revenue expenditure but ordered the withdrawal of depreciation already allowed as capital expenditure.
Issue 5: Addition of service charges on packing material u/s 40A(2)(b)
The assessee contested the addition of Rs. 8,889 u/s 40A(2)(b) for service charges on packing material supplied to M/s Sona Distilleries Ltd. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the assessee's own case for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87, where such additions were deleted based on business expediency. The Tribunal deleted the addition.
Issue 6: Disallowance of public relation and staff welfare expenses as entertainment expenses
The assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 97,350 out of public relation expenses and Rs. 30,000 out of staff welfare expenses as entertainment expenses. The Tribunal found the treating of Rs. 30,000 out of total staff welfare expenses as entertainment expenses to be reasonable. However, for public relation expenses, the Tribunal estimated that Rs. 50,000 out of Rs. 97,350 should be treated as entertainment expenses. Thus, a total of Rs. 80,000 was treated as entertainment expenses instead of Rs. 1,27,350.
Conclusion:
- The Revenue's appeal (ITA No. 1546/Jp/1995) was dismissed. - The assessee's appeal (ITA No. 1561/Jp/1995) was allowed. - The assessee's appeal (ITA No. 2072/Jp/1992) was partly allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 257
Issues Involved: 1. Treatment of expenditure on repairs and maintenance to furniture and fixture as capital expenditure. 2. Expenditure on replacement of cables as capital or revenue expenditure. 3. Disallowance of miscellaneous expenses. 4. Depreciation on imported cars. 5. Depreciation on Indian cars. 6. Depreciation on motor boats. 7. Depreciation on woollen rugs and carpets. 8. Disallowance of professional charges paid to architects. 9. Disallowance of expenditure on sponsoring a cricket match.
Summary of Judgment:
1. Treatment of Expenditure on Repairs and Maintenance to Furniture and Fixture: The assessee claimed expenditures of Rs. 10,31,157 for AY 1990-91 and Rs. 8,72,262 for AY 1991-92 on repairs and maintenance to furniture and fixture. The AO treated part of these expenditures as capital, citing lack of evidence. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision. However, the Tribunal found that the expenditures were duly recorded and audited, with no specific capital expenditure identified by the AO. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the entire expenditure as revenue expenditure.
2. Expenditure on Replacement of Cables: The assessee incurred expenditures of Rs. 80,764 and Rs. 67,450 for replacing electric cables in AY 1990-91 and 1991-92, respectively. The AO and CIT(A) treated these as capital expenditures due to lack of evidence of replacement. The Tribunal upheld this treatment, citing insufficient evidence to support the claim of replacement.
3. Disallowance of Miscellaneous Expenses: The AO made an ad hoc disallowance of Rs. 30,000 each year due to unverifiable nature and potential non-business purpose. The CIT(A) confirmed this. The Tribunal found the disallowance unsustainable due to lack of specific findings and directed the AO to delete the disallowance.
4. Depreciation on Imported Cars: The assessee claimed higher depreciation on imported cars used for tourist transportation. The AO disallowed this, treating the use as incidental to the hotel business. The Tribunal found that the cars were used regularly for hire and allowed the higher depreciation, referencing CBDT Circular No. 609 and relevant case law.
5. Depreciation on Indian Cars: Similar to the imported cars, the assessee claimed higher depreciation on Indian cars used for hire. The AO allowed only normal depreciation. The Tribunal, following its reasoning for imported cars, directed the AO to allow higher depreciation.
6. Depreciation on Motor Boats: The assessee claimed higher depreciation on boats used for transporting guests to a hotel situated in a lake. The AO treated the boats as ships, allowing lower depreciation. The Tribunal upheld this, rejecting the claim to treat boats as plant.
7. Depreciation on Woollen Rugs and Carpets: The assessee claimed higher depreciation on woollen rugs and carpets, treating them as plant. The AO and CIT(A) treated them as furniture and fixture, allowing lower depreciation. The Tribunal upheld the lower rate, noting that the expenditure was capitalized in prior years and only the depreciation rate was in dispute.
8. Disallowance of Professional Charges Paid to Architects: The assessee paid Rs. 1,40,000 to architects for renovation design services, claimed as revenue expenditure. The AO treated it as capital expenditure. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO to verify if the charges were linked to actual costs of expansion and to allow the appropriate treatment based on this verification.
9. Disallowance of Expenditure on Sponsoring a Cricket Match: The assessee incurred Rs. 1,03,000 on sponsoring a cricket match, claimed as advertisement expenditure. The AO disallowed it due to lack of evidence of business purpose. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, finding no evidence to support the claim of advertisement expenditure.
Conclusion: Both appeals by the assessee were partly allowed, with directions for the AO to re-evaluate certain expenditures and allow appropriate deductions as revenue expenditures where justified.
-
2001 (3) TMI 255
Computation ... ... ... ... ..... s of the CIT(A) although during the course of the hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel for the assessee referred to the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ranchi Club Ltd. (2000) 164 CTR (SC) 200 contending that no interest could be charged since the returned income was nil. We would like to make it clear at this stage that it is the Revenue which is in appeal before the Tribunal and we have upheld the view taken by the CIT(A) rejecting the relevant ground and the assessee at this stage cannot seek any relief over and above what has already been allowed by the first appellate authority since it is not a cross-objector or in cross-appeal before the Tribunal. In case, one was to consider the assessee s request with reference to r. 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, then the Tribunal can only confirm the view taken by the first appellate authority and here also no further relief can be allowed. 8. In the result, the Revenue s appeal is dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 254
Business Income ... ... ... ... ..... on of the assessments. But the reopening was done on the basis of a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vijaya Bank Ltd. It is true. The Revenue authorities are empowered to reopen a completed assessment on the basis of a decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court. But this power is not absolute. It should be within the time prescribed under the statute, otherwise there will be no finality and the reopening can go on, ad infinitum, which is against the canons of jurisprudence. Since there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts for the assessment, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to reopen the assessments for these years. The cross-objections filed by the assessee are liable to be allowed on this ground alone. Even otherwise, we have also decided the issue on merits in the appeals preferred by the Revenue, in favour of the assessee. In this view of the matter, the cross-objections are allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 253
Issues Involved: 1. Addition of Rs. 4,20,184 to the assessee's income. 2. Addition of Rs. 3,76,114 for lower yield of rice and by-products.
Summary:
1. Addition of Rs. 4,20,184 to the Assessee's Income: The primary issue in the assessee's appeal (I.T.A. No. 1657/Chd./90) was the upholding of an addition of Rs. 4,20,184. The assessee firm, engaged in rice selling, claimed to have sold paddy to M/s. Ganesh Rice Mills, which was contested by the Revenue based on a statement from Shri Sat Pal, a partner at M/s. Ganesh Rice Mills, denying any such purchase. The Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT (A) upheld the addition, treating the amount as income from undisclosed sources u/s 68/69A due to discrepancies in sales tax forms and the absence of the broker, Shri Bachan Lal, for examination.
The Tribunal noted that the books of account were regularly maintained and audited, and no discrepancies were found by the Revenue. The sales were also accepted by the Sales-tax Department. The Tribunal found that the Revenue's case was built on suspicion and that the application of section 68/69A was improper as it was not a case of cash credit simpliciter. The Tribunal ordered the deletion of the addition of Rs. 4,20,184, emphasizing that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for evidence.
2. Addition of Rs. 3,76,114 for Lower Yield of Rice and By-products: In the Revenue's appeal (I.T.A. No. 1727/Chd./90), the issue was the addition of Rs. 3,76,114 for allegedly showing a lower yield of rice and other by-products. The AO had initially computed a concealed income of Rs. 3,76,114 due to lower yield but did not make this addition separately, considering it telescoped in the higher addition of Rs. 4,20,184.
The CIT (A) did not find justification for a further addition of Rs. 3,76,114. However, the Tribunal, considering that the higher addition of Rs. 4,20,184 was deleted, restored the matter back to the CIT (A) to reconsider the issue of addition of Rs. 3,76,114.
Separate Judgment: Per Gandhi, a separate judgment was delivered dissenting from the majority view, holding that the addition of Rs. 4,20,184 was justified based on the evidence and the sequence of events, including the dubious nature of the alleged sale and the failure of the assessee to produce the broker, Shri Bachan Lal, for examination.
Final Order: The majority opinion led to the deletion of the addition of Rs. 4,20,184, and the matter regarding the addition of Rs. 3,76,114 was remanded back to the CIT (A) for reconsideration. The assessee's appeal was allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2001 (3) TMI 252
Rectification Of Mistakes, Apparent From Record ... ... ... ... ..... , in fact, the original order as modified by various orders of the CIT(A) or revisionary order of the CIT, any case, the directions of the CIT(A) that he cannot rectify 254 or 251 order are contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hind Ware Industries Ltd., wherein, as aforesaid, the Supreme Court held that order sought to be amended does not necessarily mean the original order but can be an order including amended or rectified order. In this view of the matter also, we are of the opinion that the error committed by the Assessing Officer can be rectified and it would be within the time-limit of four years to be counted from 6-11-1995 in terms of the Supreme Court order in the case of Hind Ware Industries Ltd. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we uphold the action of the ITO restricting the reduction under section 80HHC to the amount of the gross total income of the assessee. 13. In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 251
Issues Involved: 1. Entitlement to deduction u/s 80-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Summary:
Entitlement to Deduction u/s 80-O: The assessee, Overseas Merchandise Inspection Company (India) Pvt. Ltd. (OMIC India), appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming the disallowance of deduction u/s 80-O for earnings in Convertible Foreign Exchange for services rendered from India. The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 4,81,787, arguing that services were rendered from India for OMIC International, Tokyo, which had contracts for inspection in various countries including Kenya and Benin. The services involved inspecting and certifying cargo quality, quantity, and price for exports from India to these countries.
The Assessing Officer (AO) denied the deduction, stating that the services were rendered in India, not from India, as per Explanation III to section 80-O. The CIT(A) upheld this view, noting no evidence that the certificates were utilized outside India. The assessee contended that the services were rendered from India and cited CBDT Circular No. 700, which clarifies that technical and professional services rendered from India and received by a foreign entity qualify for deduction u/s 80-O, even if utilized in India.
The Tribunal examined the nature of services, which included inspection and certification as per the Import Regulations of the Republic of Kenya. The services were rendered on behalf of OMIC International and were utilized by foreign government clients. The Tribunal found that the services were indeed rendered from India and utilized abroad, satisfying the criteria for deduction u/s 80-O. The Tribunal also referenced several judicial precedents supporting a liberal interpretation of section 80-O to encourage foreign exchange earnings.
Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was entitled to the deduction u/s 80-O, as the services were rendered from India and utilized by foreign entities, and the income was received in convertible Foreign Exchange. The appeal was allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 250
Issues Involved: 1. Deletion of addition on account of capital gains on transfer of shares. 2. Applicability of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Netherlands. 3. Validity of the assessment order and related procedural issues.
Summary:
1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Capital Gains on Transfer of Shares: The Revenue's appeals were against the deletion of additions made by the AO on account of capital gains from the transfer of shares held by the assessee-companies (General Electric Company Plc., UK, English Electric Company Ltd., UK, and Associated Electrical Industries Ltd., UK) to GEC Alsthom N.V., a Netherlands-based company. The AO had computed taxable capital gains based on stock exchange quotations, as the assessee-companies did not disclose the precise consideration for the transfer. The CIT(A) deleted these additions, accepting the assessee's arguments that the transfer did not result in taxable capital gains under s. 45(3) and was exempt under various judicial precedents and the DTAA between India and Netherlands. However, the ITAT held that the transfer of shares constituted a taxable event under s. 45(1), and the consideration received (shares in GEC Alsthom NV) was indeed subject to capital gains tax. The ITAT restored the AO's order, rejecting the CIT(A)'s reliance on judicial precedents and the argument that the transaction was exempt under s. 45(3).
2. Applicability of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Netherlands: The assessee-companies argued that the capital gains from the transfer of shares were exempt from Indian taxation under Art. 13 of the Indo-Netherlands DTAA, claiming they were residents of the Netherlands due to their business operations and tax liabilities there. The ITAT examined the provisions of the Indo-UK DTAA and Indo-Netherlands DTAA, concluding that the assessee-companies were residents of the UK for tax purposes, as their place of effective management was in the UK. The ITAT held that the capital gains were taxable in India under the domestic law, as the provisions of the Indo-UK DTAA did not protect the capital gains from Indian taxation.
3. Validity of the Assessment Order and Related Procedural Issues: The assessee-companies raised cross-objections, arguing that the assessment orders were time-barred and that the AO had erred in determining the previous year as the calendar year 1991 instead of the financial year ending 31st March 1991. The ITAT found no merit in these objections, noting that the assessment orders were passed within the statutory time limit and that the mention of 31st December 1991 was an inadvertent typing error, which did not invalidate the assessment under s. 292B. The ITAT dismissed the cross-objections, upholding the validity of the assessment orders.
Conclusion: The ITAT allowed the Revenue's appeals, restoring the AO's additions on account of capital gains, and dismissed the assessee-companies' cross-objections, affirming the validity of the assessment orders.
-
2001 (3) TMI 249
Valuation Of Closing Stock ... ... ... ... ..... also supported by our understanding of intent of the legislature and of the mischief which was sought to be remedied by the legislative amendments and, also by the principle of striking a balance between letter and spirit of law. On the application of this proposition to the case before us, however, we find that facts regarding commission and brokerage and RBI approvals for the same have not been examined at any stage. We, therefore, restore this matter to the file of the AO to examine the facts in the light of our observations earlier in this paragraph. The ground Nos. 6 and 7, therefore, succeed in principle. 23. Ground No. 8 is only an alternate ground and would have required adjudication only on rejection of ground No. 6 and 7. Since these two grounds are allowed, ground No. 8 becomes infructuous and is dismissed accordingly. 24. Ground No. 9 is general in nature and does not warrant and adjudication. Dismissed accordingly. 25. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 248
... ... ... ... ..... preferring an appeal within the period of limitation, can wake up and prefer an appeal after a subsequent ruling of the Supreme Court or the High Court which he considers as being favourable to him. Nor can the advice of his counsel that his case is not a fit one for appeal, which advice may turn out to be a mistaken one in the light of a subsequent ruling of the Supreme Court or the High Court, be regarded as a sufficient ground for condoning such delay. 16. The above decision talks about a subsequent ruling by the Supreme Court or High Court. The assessee s case in the present appeal is on a weaker footing inasmuch as that it has preferred an appeal on the basis of a subsequent ruling by the Tribunal. Thus, in view of the foregoing discussion, we refuse to condone the delay. Since the appeal remains unadmitted on grounds of limitation, we need not go into the merits of the issue. 17. In the result, the appeal of the Department as well as that of the assessee are dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 247
... ... ... ... ..... for non-business purposes, the same may be disallowed. 60. The AO observed that the assessee admitted to have taken loans for non-professional purpose and thus added Rs. 36,000 in the block assessment. 61. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us. Learned authorised representative contended that the expenses are reflected in the income and expenditure accounts which are filed alongwith the return of income. In fact, interest on the loans was disallowed by AO in the assessment proceedings under s. 143(3) of the Act for the asst. yr. 1996-97. Hence addition of Rs. 36,000 is not maintainable in block assessment. Learned Departmental Representative fairly admitted the factual position. We, therefore, delete the addition of Rs. 36,000 in the light of the decision of Tribunal, Bombay Bench, in case of Sunder Agencies. 62. Ground Nos. 15 and 16 are general and ground Nos. 17 to 20 are already considered by us. 63. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 246
... ... ... ... ..... CTR (SC) 177 (1999) 237 ITR 589 (SC) and of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Cement Distribution Ltd. (1994) 119 CTR (Del) 496 (1994) 208 ITR 355 (Del), in addition to the various decisions cited by the learned Departmental Representative in this context. With respect, it has to be observed that the various decisions cited by the learned counsel for the assessee were rendered without considering the decision of the apex Court in the case of Sterling Foods and Orissa State Warehousing Corpn. Ltd. Finally the Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee was not allowable for deduction under s. 80HHC of the Act. 5. Facts being identical, following the above order of the Tribunal bases on not only of various High Courts but also on the Supreme Court, we hold that the authorities below were justified in not allowing the claim of deduction under s. 80HHC of the Act on the interest income earned by the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 245
Interest chargeable ... ... ... ... ..... essee and the returned income was accepted by the Department, we are of the opinion that the provisions of s. 234B(2)(i) have not been properly implemented. We have seen the computation of income filed by the learned authorised representative which also go to justify the case of the assessee. The learned CIT(A) has come to the conclusion on technical ground without stating a word regarding merits of the appeal before him. 4. The computation of income filed before us makes it amply clear that the mistake in the intimation was apparent from record and should have been rectified by the Department. To do justice and to settle the issue under consideration, we are of the opinion that the appeal of the assessee should be accepted. The appeal in question is against the order passed under s. 154 and is not against the levy of interest under s. 234B alone. Interest is charged in this case upto the date of payment made under s. 140A. Consequently, the appeal is accepted and is allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 244
Full And True Disclosure ... ... ... ... ..... Kumar Purshotam Dass, Jaitu, could not be said to be bogus, is justified or the approach adopted by the A.M. upholding the action of the AO in initiating proceedings under s. 147(a) of the IT Act, 1961, and restoring the matter back with regard to the genuineness of the loan transactions with M/s Ram Kumar Purshotam Dass to the file of the AO by relying on his dissenting order in ITA No. 293/Asr/1991 is correct? 2. In this regard, it is seen that similar issue was decided by me in ITA No. 293/Asr/1991 wherein I have upheld that order of the learned A.M. Consequently the order of the learned A.M. for these assessment years also is upheld whereby the action of the AO in reopening these four assessments under s. 147(a) has been approved and the matter has been restored back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in the light of the observations in ITA No. 293/Asr/1991 for asst. yr. 1981-82. The matter will now go back to the Division Bench for passing consequential order.
-
2001 (3) TMI 243
Appellate Tribunal, Appealable Orders, Interpretatin Of Statutes ... ... ... ... ..... r, there should be no construction which deprives any party of a valuable right and the delay in filing of the appeal on the part of a party does gives to the respondent a valuable right from which he should not be deprived without a proper hearing. I have to further hold that one does not have to see the nomenclature of the order passed but the substance thereof and by this I would like to refer to the facts of the present case that even if an order passed by the Id. CIT(A) is purported to be one under section 249(3). It is in substance an order passed under section 250 and, therefore, appealable before the Tribunal. 17. In the final analysis, I agree with the learned Accountant Member in coming to the conclusion that he did on facts and law to hold that the appeals of the Revenue were competent and these were to be posted for hearing on merits. The Registry is directed to place these files before the Division Bench for passing orders in confirming with the majority opinion.
-
2001 (3) TMI 242
... ... ... ... ..... remaining amount of Rs. 1,50,000, it is the claim of the assessee that the FDRs were purchased by Smt. Sureshta Rani from her own sources. At one stage, the A.O. asked the assessee to produce the copies of the FDRs to prove the purchase of these FDRs on or before the date of receipt of compensation money by the assessee. The assessee could not produce any evidence. Later on it was claimed that these FDRs were re-investment of the old FDRs but the same also could not be proved. Even admitting that this investment of Rs. 1,50,000 was made by Smt. Sureshta Rani from her own sources, the fact remains that the assessee received Rs. 4,74,724 and this amount of Rs. 1,50,000 has not been shown either in cash or otherwise. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 1,50,000 in any case has to be treated as assets of the assessee. I hold accordingly and uphold the, finding of the learned Accountant Member. 7. The matter will go back to the regular Bench for decision according to majority opinion.
-
2001 (3) TMI 241
Business Income ... ... ... ... ..... e 9B of the Income-tax was reasonable. The learned Judicial Member, however, held that the Assessing Officer himself did not strictly interpret the terms and stipulations of agreement which is necessary for working out the minimum guarantee and directed that the same should be restored to his file. 6. In view of the limited difference of opinion, I am of the view that the learned Judicial Member was fully justified in restoring the matter back to the Assessing Officer so that the assessee will have full opportunity to substantiate its claim. Since the order of the CIT(A) stands reversed by both the Members, the only alternative is to allow the Assessing Officer to recompute the minimum guarantee on the basis of the terms and stipulations in the agreement and in doing so, reasonable opportunity should be given to the assessee. I accordingly concur with the view of the learned Judicial Member. 7. The matter will now go back to the Division Bench for passing consequential order.
-
2001 (3) TMI 240
Assessment, Additions To Income ... ... ... ... ..... he prevailing rate of profit from year to year as the turnover during the year is two times of assessment year 1985-86 where the rate of profit was 5.9. It is also seen that in the assessment year 1988-89, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 27,694 on account of unvouched purchases. When the matter came up to the Tribunal, the Tribunal (wherein the learned Accountant Member himself is the author) found that the g.p. rate of 6.796 on sale of Rs. 50,74,569 as compared to 5.2 shown on total sales of Rs. 43,70,724 in the case of the assessee in the immediately preceding assessment year is quite reasonable and no, addition was called for. It is also seen that the Assessing Officer himself accepted g.p. rate of 5.8 for assessment year 1991-92. In that view of the matter also, there is no reason for making any addition. I, therefore, concur with the view taken by the learned Judicial Member. 8. The matter will now go back to the Division Bench for passing consequential order.
-
2001 (3) TMI 239
Income Escaping Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... pholding the action of the Assessing Officer in initiating proceedings under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and restoring the matter back with regard to the genuineness of the loan transactions with M/s. Ram Kumar Parshotam Dass to the file of the Assessing Officer by relying on his dissenting order in ITA No. 293/ASR/ 1991 is correct ? In this regard, it is seen that similar issue was decided by me in ITA No. 293/ASR/1991 wherein I have upheld the order of the learned Accountant Member. Consequently the order of the learned Accountant Member for these assessment years also is upheld whereby the action of The Assessing Officer in reopening these four assessment years under setion 147(a) has been approved and the matter has been restored back the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in the light of the observation in ITA No. 293 /ASR/ 1991 for assessment year 1981-82. The matter will now go back to the Division Bench for passing consequential order.
-
2001 (3) TMI 238
... ... ... ... ..... ri Ravi Sahdev agreed to share the losses for the minority period, it does not lie on the revenue to object to his personal decision. Even in any case the accounts of the assessee were to be closed at the end of the financial year and profit and loss had to be determined on the basis of the deed of partnership. Automatically Shri Ravi Sahdev will share the loss, if there is any. However, that itself has become academic in view of the fact that the assessee-firm was assessed on a total positive income. There is, therefore, no infirmity in the partnership deed and it will not be justified to refuse registration to the assessee-firm on this very flimsy technical ground. The learned Judicial Member is fully justified in allowing the claim of registration for the year under consideration and continuation of the same for the assessment year 1985-86. I fully concur with the learned Judicial Member. 9. The matter will now go back to the Division Bench for passing consequential order.
............
|