|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 309 Records
-
1993 (9) TMI 176
Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 64(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding the inclusion of income from partnership firms in individual assessments.
2. Application of section 64(1)(ii) in cases where the assessee is a partner in a firm in a representative capacity.
3. Conflict between different High Court decisions on the interpretation of section 64(1)(ii).
Analysis:
Issue 1: Interpretation of section 64(1)(ii)
The case involved a dispute over the application of section 64(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which deals with the inclusion of income from partnership firms in individual assessments. The Assessing Officer had included a sum in the assessee's income from a partnership firm where both the assessee and his wife were partners. The CIT(A) ruled in favor of the assessee, citing various decisions and interpretations. The High Court had observed that the section requires both the parent and the minor child to be members of the same firm for its applicability, without any further conditions. The Court emphasized that the share income of minors should be assessed in the individual hands of the parent, even if the parent represents a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) in the firm.
Issue 2: Application of section 64(1)(ii) in representative capacity
The conflict arose when the assessee argued that he was a partner in the firm in a representative capacity as the karta of a HUF, and thus section 64(1)(ii) should not apply to his case. The CIT(A) accepted this argument based on previous favorable decisions and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition to the assessee's income. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee's representative capacity did not exempt him from the application of section 64(1)(ii), leading to the allowance of the departmental appeal.
Issue 3: Conflict between High Court decisions
The case highlighted a conflict between different High Court decisions on the interpretation of section 64(1)(ii). The Madras High Court's decision favored the assessee's position, while the High Court in another jurisdiction ruled against the assessee. The Tribunal ultimately followed the interpretation that the share income of minors from a partnership should be included in the individual assessment of the parent, irrespective of the parent's representative capacity in the firm.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the departmental appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and restoring that of the Assessing Officer. The judgment emphasized the strict application of section 64(1)(ii) in assessing income from partnership firms in individual assessments, regardless of the assessee's representative capacity in the firm.
-
1993 (9) TMI 174
Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of "hank yarn obligation premium" as capital or revenue receipt.
2. Disallowance under section 37(3A) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Treatment of initial depreciation allowed in earlier assessment years.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Taxability of "hank yarn obligation premium" as Capital or Revenue Receipt:
The primary issue was whether the "hank yarn obligation premium" received by the assessee is chargeable to tax as a capital or revenue receipt. The context involved the Government's regulation of cotton textile production patterns, specifically through Notification No. CER/17/79, which required yarn producers to pack a certain percentage of yarn in hank form. The Indian Cotton Mills Federation formulated a scheme allowing mills to transfer their hank yarn obligations to other mills for a monetary consideration.
The assessee, a transferee of such obligations, received premiums for fulfilling these obligations. Initially, the assessee treated these premiums as revenue receipts but later claimed them as capital receipts. The Assessing Officer and CIT (Appeals) treated the premiums as revenue receipts, citing section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act and the nature of the receipts arising in the course of business.
The Tribunal, upon examining the principles and relevant case law, concluded that the premiums received filled a hole in the assessee's profits caused by the transferred obligations, making them revenue receipts. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's observations in K.T.M.T.M. Abdul Kayoom v. CIT and Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT, emphasizing that each case depends on its facts and that the nature of the transaction should be examined on first principles. The Tribunal affirmed that the premiums were taxable as revenue receipts.
2. Disallowance under Section 37(3A) of the Income Tax Act:
For the assessment year 1984-85, the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 14,112 under section 37(3A), considering car maintenance expenses of Rs. 1,41,205. The assessee argued that expenses covered by section 31 (insurance premia and repair expenses) should not be included under section 37(3A). The CIT (Appeals) agreed and directed the exclusion of these items, a decision supported by the Tribunal, referencing the Bombay case of CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No. 1).
3. Treatment of Initial Depreciation Allowed in Earlier Assessment Years:
The assessee claimed depreciation of Rs. 59,84,739 without reducing the written down value (WDV) of labor quarters by the initial depreciation allowed in previous years. The Assessing Officer adjusted the WDV accordingly, but the CIT (Appeals) allowed the assessee's claim, stating that the initial depreciation should not affect the WDV calculation. The Tribunal noted that the CIT (Appeals) did not provide a detailed rationale and remitted the issue back for fresh consideration, particularly in light of the amendment to section 32(1)(iv) by the Finance Act, 1983.
Conclusion:
- The appeals by the assessee were dismissed, affirming that the hank yarn obligation premiums are revenue receipts.
- The Tribunal upheld the CIT (Appeals) decision on the disallowance under section 37(3A).
- The issue of initial depreciation treatment was remitted for fresh consideration by the first appellate authority.
Order:
- Assessee's appeals dismissed.
- Departmental appeal treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
1993 (9) TMI 173
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act, 1961.
2. Entitlement to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(ii) of the IT Act, 1961.
3. Entitlement to deduction under section 80P(2)(e) of the IT Act, 1961.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Entitlement to Deduction Under Section 80P(2)(a)(i):
The primary contention of the assessee-societies was that they were engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to their members and thus entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A) rejected this claim, emphasizing that the societies were primarily marketing societies and not credit societies. The AO noted that the main function of the societies was marketing the finished goods of silk sarees deposited by its members and that advancing loans was merely incidental. The CIT(A) supported this view, noting that the major source of income for the societies was from marketing activities and not from interest on loans.
The Tribunal upheld the findings of the lower authorities, stating that the societies were classified as marketing societies under the relevant Co-operative Societies Acts and that the principal object of the societies was marketing, not providing credit facilities. The Tribunal also referenced several judicial precedents, including the Kerala High Court's decision in Kerala Co-operative Consumers' Federation Ltd. v. CIT and the Allahabad High Court's decision in U.P. Co-operative Cane Union, which supported the view that providing credit facilities must be the primary business of the society to qualify for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal concluded that the societies were marketing societies and not credit societies, and thus not entitled to the deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i).
2. Entitlement to Deduction Under Section 80P(2)(a)(ii):
The assessee-societies also claimed that they were engaged in a cottage industry and thus entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(ii). The AO and CIT(A) rejected this claim, noting that the societies were marketing societies and not engaged in any industrial activity. The Tribunal examined the judicial interpretations of "cottage industry" and noted that the essential attributes of a cottage industry include small-scale operations, family labor, and production in homes or small workshops. The Tribunal found that the societies did not meet these criteria as they did not own looms, did not supply raw materials, and did not control the weaving activities of their members. The Tribunal referenced several cases, including the Allahabad High Court's decision in District Co-operative Federation Ltd. v. CIT and the Delhi High Court's decision in Indian Co-operative Union Ltd., which supported the view that mere marketing activities do not qualify as cottage industry.
The Tribunal concluded that the societies were not engaged in a cottage industry and thus not entitled to the deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(ii).
3. Entitlement to Deduction Under Section 80P(2)(e):
The assessee-societies raised a new claim before the Tribunal for deduction under section 80P(2)(e), arguing that they provided godown facilities to their members. The Tribunal declined to entertain this claim as it was not raised before the AO or CIT(A) and required factual inquiry. The Tribunal dismissed the related grounds in limine.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the findings of the lower authorities and dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee-societies. The societies were classified as marketing societies and not credit societies or cottage industries, and thus not entitled to deductions under sections 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(a)(ii). The claim under section 80P(2)(e) was dismissed as it was not raised at the appropriate stages.
-
1993 (9) TMI 168
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction of fine paid for import of industrial acid oil.
2. Addition of value for short-received industrial acid oil during transit.
Issue 1: Deduction of Fine Paid for Import of Industrial Acid Oil
The assessee, a manufacturer of soaps, imported industrial acid oil using REP licences obtained under the import policy of 1980-81. The import policy allowed the import of such raw materials without restriction. However, under the 1985-88 import policy, industrial acid oil became canalised. The Customs authorities at Cochin alleged that the import was unauthorised and imposed a fine of Rs. 2,50,000 to release the goods. The assessee claimed this fine as a deduction, arguing it represented an additional cost of goods. The CIT(A) disallowed the deduction, viewing the fine as a penalty for infraction of law.
The assessee contended that the import was done in good faith, relying on the saving clause of 131(1) in the 1980-81 policy, which allowed the use of REP licences for importing raw materials. The assessee supported its bona fide belief with opinions from M.P. Consultancy Organisation Ltd. and a Supreme Court decision in a similar case. The assessee also cited precedents from the Delhi High Court (CIT vs. Loknath & Co.) and the Bombay High Court (CIT vs. Pannalal Narottamdas & Co.), which allowed such deductions when the infraction was not deliberate.
The Departmental Representative argued that the assessee knowingly contravened the import policy by not obtaining necessary endorsements and importing a canalised item. The Department cited cases where penalties for deliberate infractions were disallowed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee acted in good faith, supported by the Supreme Court decision and the consultancy opinion. The Tribunal noted that the assessee applied for the necessary endorsement upon learning about the requirement. The Tribunal concluded that the fine represented an additional cost of goods, incurred in the normal course of business, and allowed the deduction.
Issue 2: Addition of Value for Short-Received Industrial Acid Oil During Transit
The assessee claimed a deduction for the shortage of industrial acid oil received during transit from Cochin to Bombay and Indore. The first consignment, weighing 724.621 MT, arrived at Cochin Port and was transported to Bombay. The assessee claimed a transit shortage of 19.880 MT, based on weighment certified by Hindustan Lever. The second consignment, weighing 163.725 MT, arrived in damaged drums, and the assessee claimed a transit shortage of 10.233 MT, based on actual receipt at the destination.
The Assessing Officer accepted the shortage certified by the survey report but disallowed the transit shortages, arguing that the claims were not supported by independent evidence and that the transporter should be responsible for any losses. The CIT(A) upheld this view.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer accepted the shortage at the ship, indicating that some shortage during transit was plausible. The Tribunal found the assessee's claim for the first consignment credible, as it was based on Hindustan Lever's certified weighment. The Tribunal allowed the entire claim of 19.880 MT as a deduction.
For the second consignment, the Tribunal acknowledged the damaged condition of the drums but found the claimed shortage of 10.233 MT (6.5%) slightly high. Without independent evidence, the Tribunal allowed a partial deduction of 5.233 MT and disallowed the remaining 5 MT for lack of substantiation.
Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal allowed the deduction of the fine paid for importing industrial acid oil, considering it an additional cost incurred in good faith. The Tribunal also provided partial relief for the claimed transit shortages, allowing deductions based on the evidence presented.
-
1993 (9) TMI 167
Issues:
1. Rejection of claim under section 80U of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 1988-89.
2. Interpretation of "permanent physical disability" under section 80U.
3. Impact of disability on the capacity to engage in gainful employment.
4. Consideration of medical certificates in determining disability.
5. Application of legal precedents in similar cases.
6. Construction and interpretation of Section 80U of the Income-tax Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) order rejecting the claim under section 80U of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1988-89.
2. The issue revolved around the interpretation of "permanent physical disability" under section 80U. The Income-tax Officer contended that the disability was partial and occurred at a young age, not substantially reducing the capacity for gainful employment.
3. The Tribunal considered the impact of the disability on the capacity to engage in gainful employment. The appellant argued that a disability of more than 50% inherently reduces the capacity for gainful employment significantly.
4. The relevance of medical certificates was discussed in determining the disability. The certificates provided by Orthopaedic Surgeons were analyzed to ascertain the extent and permanency of the disability.
5. Legal precedents, including decisions by the Tribunal and High Courts, were cited to support the appellant's claim. These cases emphasized that the focus should be on the substantial reduction in capacity due to the disability, rather than the individual's current employment status.
6. The construction and interpretation of Section 80U of the Income-tax Act were crucial in this judgment. The Tribunal highlighted the need for a liberal interpretation to advance the object of providing deductions for individuals with permanent physical disabilities substantially reducing their capacity for gainful employment.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to grant the claim under section 80U. The decision was based on the substantial impact of the disability on the appellant's capacity for gainful employment, as interpreted under the provisions of the Income-tax Act and supported by legal precedents.
-
1993 (9) TMI 166
Issues:
Grant of interest under section 214 and section 244 for the assessment year 1983-84.
Analysis:
The appeal concerns the grant of interest under section 214 and section 244 for the assessment year 1983-84. The assessee, a registered firm engaged in manufacturing, had claimed investment allowance which was initially disallowed by the Income-tax Officer. However, on appeal, the ITAT allowed the claim, resulting in a refund. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, while determining the refund, did not grant interest under section 214 on the excess advance tax paid or interest under section 244(1A) on the total amount paid or adjusted in pursuance of the assessment order. The Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) reversed this decision, holding that the assessee was entitled to interest under both sections. The Revenue appealed this decision before the Tribunal.
The main contention was whether the assessee was entitled to interest under section 214 and section 244(1A) on the excess advance tax paid and the total amount paid in pursuance of the assessment order. The Revenue argued that the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in directing the grant of interest under these sections. The Revenue relied on a decision by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which held that interest under section 214 does not apply when a refund is to be made due to an appellate order. However, the assessee cited a decision by the Delhi High Court, which clarified that interest on advance tax is payable up to the date of refund. The assessee also referred to a decision by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which emphasized that once advance tax is adjusted towards the tax liability, it loses its identity and is treated as payment of tax.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals), stating that the assessee was entitled to interest on the excess advance tax paid and the total amount paid in pursuance of the assessment order. The Tribunal found support in the decisions of the Delhi High Court and the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which emphasized the entitlement of interest in such cases. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, affirming the grant of interest under section 214 and section 244(1A) to the assessee for the assessment year 1983-84.
-
1993 (9) TMI 165
Issues Involved: Applicability of the Expenditure Tax Act, 1987; Inclusion of luxury tax in "room charges"; Interpretation of "room charges" under Section 2(10) of the Expenditure Tax Act; Principles of statutory interpretation; Validity of CBDT circulars.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of the Expenditure Tax Act, 1987:
The main issue in these appeals is whether the Expenditure Tax Act, 1987 applies to the assessee, a hotel, based on the room charges exceeding Rs. 400 per day per individual. The Assessing Officer included luxury tax in the room charges, thus making the composite sum exceed Rs. 400. The CIT(A) upheld this view, considering luxury tax as part of the room tariff. The Tribunal had to determine if luxury tax should be included in room charges for the purposes of the Act.
2. Inclusion of Luxury Tax in "Room Charges":
The assessee argued that luxury tax should not be included in "room charges" as defined in the Act. The Tribunal examined the nature and character of luxury tax, concluding that it is a tax imposed by the State for a public purpose and not a fee for services rendered. The Tribunal stated, "Luxury tax is thus an impost truly described as a tax and not a fee charged for any services rendered or promised." Therefore, luxury tax cannot be considered part of room charges.
3. Interpretation of "Room Charges" under Section 2(10) of the Expenditure Tax Act:
The Tribunal analyzed the definition of "room charges" under Section 2(10), which includes charges for furniture, air-conditioner, refrigerator, radio, music, telephone, television, and "such other services as are normally included by a hotel in room rent." The Tribunal emphasized that "such other services" must be services normally included in room rent and not taxes like luxury tax. The Tribunal concluded, "The luxury tax therefore cannot be treated as part of room charges on plain reading of the provision defining room charges."
4. Principles of Statutory Interpretation:
The Tribunal considered the principles of ejusdem generis and the rule that a taxing statute must be strictly construed. The Tribunal noted, "The expression ejusdem generis --' of the same kind or nature '-- signifies a principle of construction where by words in a statute which are otherwise wide but are associated in the text with more limited words are, by implication, given a restricted operation." Applying this principle, the Tribunal concluded that "such other services" in Section 2(10)(b) must refer to services similar to those listed in Section 2(10)(a) and cannot include luxury tax.
5. Validity of CBDT Circulars:
The Tribunal rejected the applicability of CBDT circulars that included luxury tax in room charges, stating, "A circular cannot even impose on the taxpayer a burden higher than what the Act itself, on a true interpretation, envisages." The Tribunal emphasized that the interpretation of laws is the exclusive domain of the courts and that circulars cannot override the statutory provisions.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the lower authorities were incorrect in applying the provisions of the Expenditure Tax Act to the assessee by including luxury tax in room charges. The Tribunal set aside the assessments for all three years and held that the assessee is not liable to pay the expenditure tax. The appeals of the assessee were allowed.
-
1993 (9) TMI 164
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction of commission payment to M/s Krishan Chand Chellaram, Bombay.
2. Services rendered by the Bombay party.
3. Evidence of services rendered.
4. Commercial expediency of the commission payment.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Deduction of Commission Payment to M/s Krishan Chand Chellaram, Bombay:
The main issue in the appeal relates to the company's claim of deduction of commission payment of Rs. 7,40,517 to M/s Krishan Chand Chellaram, Bombay. The company argued that the Bombay party helped in procuring an export order to Nigeria under the World Bank Scheme after the initial rejection of its tender. The Bombay party initially demanded a 10% commission but agreed to 7.5%. The services provided included ensuring prompt clearance at Bombay port, loading into carriers, and maintaining liaison with offices in Nigeria and the UK. Despite these claims, the tribunal found that the evidence did not support the assertion that the Bombay party rendered significant services warranting the commission payment.
2. Services Rendered by the Bombay Party:
The company claimed that the Bombay party provided essential services, including communication between India and Nigeria, preparation and submission of bid documents, liaison with Nigerian authorities, and ensuring timely shipment and clearance at the port. However, the tribunal found that the correspondence and evidence presented did not substantiate these claims. The tribunal noted that it was the company itself that managed most of the critical tasks, including shipment and follow-up for payments.
3. Evidence of Services Rendered:
The tribunal examined the correspondence between the company and the Bombay party and found that the company managed the majority of the tasks. The tribunal noted that the company kept the Bombay party informed about the shipment and other developments, rather than the other way around. The tribunal concluded that there was no substantial evidence to prove that the Bombay party rendered the claimed services. The tribunal also considered a certificate from the Chartered Accountant of the Bombay party, which merely confirmed the receipt of commission but did not detail the services rendered.
4. Commercial Expediency of the Commission Payment:
The company argued that the commission payment was justified as it enabled the company to secure a profitable export order, resulting in a net profit per pump three times the local sale price. The company relied on rulings from the Supreme Court and the Gujarat High Court to support its claim. However, the tribunal emphasized that the test of commercial expediency must be viewed from the perspective of a businessman and supported by evidence. The tribunal found that the evidence showed the UK party was involved in securing the order, and the Bombay party's involvement was not necessary. The tribunal concluded that the commission payment to the Bombay party was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business.
Conclusion:
The tribunal confirmed the disallowance of the commission payment to the Bombay party, concluding that the party did not render any significant service that would entitle it to the commission. The appeal by the assessee was allowed in part, while the department's appeal was dismissed.
-
1993 (9) TMI 163
Issues Involved:
1. Cancellation of penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Applicability of Explanation 3 to Section 271(1)(c).
3. Validity of returns filed before the issuance of notice under Section 148.
4. Interpretation of the term "not assessed hitherto" in Explanation 3 to Section 271(1)(c).
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Cancellation of Penalties Imposed Under Section 271(1)(c):
The Revenue filed appeals challenging the order of CIT(A), Bareilly, which had canceled the penalties imposed on the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalties were initially levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) for concealment of income. The CIT(A) had canceled the penalties, interpreting that Explanation 3 to Section 271(1)(c) did not apply to the assessee.
2. Applicability of Explanation 3 to Section 271(1)(c):
The Assessing Officer initiated penalties under Explanation 3 to Section 271(1)(c), arguing that the assessee failed to file returns within the limitation period and thus concealed income. The CIT(A) disagreed, asserting that the term "not assessed hitherto" did not apply since assessments for subsequent years were concluded before the notices under Section 148 were issued for the years under appeal. The Tribunal, however, interpreted that Explanation 3 applies to situations where returns were not filed before the expiry of the limitation period, regardless of subsequent assessments.
3. Validity of Returns Filed Before the Issuance of Notice Under Section 148:
The Departmental Representative argued that the returns filed on January 18, 1989, were invalid as they were not filed under Sections 139(1), 139(2), or 139(4) and were regularized only after the issuance of notice under Section 148. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the returns filed by the assessee were non est in the eye of law and were considered valid only after the notice under Section 148 was issued.
4. Interpretation of the Term "Not Assessed Hitherto" in Explanation 3 to Section 271(1)(c):
The CIT(A) interpreted "not assessed hitherto" to mean that Explanation 3 did not apply since assessments for subsequent years were concluded before the issuance of notices under Section 148. However, the Tribunal held that the term should be interpreted to mean that the assessee was not assessed at the time of the default of not filing returns. The Tribunal emphasized that the plain reading of Explanation 3 indicates it applies to cases where no returns were filed before the expiry of the limitation period for framing assessments.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the assessee did not file returns within the prescribed time, and the returns filed later were regularized only after the issuance of notice under Section 148. Therefore, Explanation 3 to Section 271(1)(c) was applicable, and the penalties for deemed concealment of income were rightly levied by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal set aside the order of CIT(A) and upheld the penalties imposed for all assessment years under appeal. The appeals were allowed in favor of the Revenue.
-
1993 (9) TMI 162
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of expenditure on purchase of plant & machinery.
2. Interest on Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs).
3. Disallowance u/s 40A(7) for provision towards approved gratuity fund.
4. Disallowance of share issue expenses and survey expenses.
5. Expenses relating to earlier years.
Summary:
1. Disallowance of Expenditure on Purchase of Plant & Machinery:
The assessee claimed Rs. 1,12,48,100 as revenue expenditure for the purchase of new machinery, arguing it replaced old machinery to update technology and reduce manufacturing costs. The Assessing Officer (AO) and Tribunal held this expenditure as capital in nature, not revenue, as it expanded the business and increased production capacity. The Tribunal directed that the assessee would be entitled to depreciation and investment allowance on these machines. The AO viewed this as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, but the Tribunal found no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee.
2. Interest on Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs):
The assessee claimed that interest accrued on FDRs amounting to Rs. 31,86,320 should not be taxed as the principal amount was under dispute in the Delhi High Court. The AO and Tribunal held that the interest income belonged to the assessee. The AO applied Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c), treating it as concealed income. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee disclosed full particulars and the claim was bona fide.
3. Disallowance u/s 40A(7) for Provision towards Approved Gratuity Fund:
The AO disallowed the provision for payment of gratuity based on the Tax Audit Report, which was confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) and Tribunal. The AO treated this as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, however, found that the assessee disclosed all material particulars and the claim was bona fide.
4. Disallowance of Share Issue Expenses and Survey Expenses:
The assessee claimed Rs. 6,02,805 for share issue expenses and Rs. 90,000 for survey expenses as revenue expenditure. The AO and Tribunal held these as capital in nature, relying on the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. The Tribunal noted that different High Courts had divergent views on this issue and found that the assessee's claim was bona fide and disclosed all material facts. Therefore, Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) was not applicable.
5. Expenses Relating to Earlier Years:
The AO initiated penalty proceedings for disallowance of expenses relating to earlier years, but the CIT (Appeals) accepted the assessee's contention, and this item was not considered for penalty. Thus, it was not a subject matter of penalty in the appeal.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the assessee disclosed all material particulars and the claims were bona fide. Therefore, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) was found to be illegal and invalid, and the appeal was allowed.
-
1993 (9) TMI 161
Issues Involved:
1. Valuation of land and building for wealth-tax purposes.
2. Adoption of yield capitalization method versus land and building method.
3. Deduction for co-ownership and old technology.
4. Valuation of Town Hall property.
5. Deduction under section 5(1)(iv) for property.
6. Estate duty liability and initiation of penalty proceedings.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Valuation of Land and Building for Wealth-Tax Purposes:
The main issue in these appeals is the valuation of land and building housing the cold storage of the firm M/s Nand Lal Cold Storage & General Mills. The approved valuer's report was obtained for the relevant assessment years. The valuer noted several factors affecting the property value, including the lack of open land, restrictions on the sale of land by the Moradabad Development Authority, and the property being owned by multiple co-owners. The valuer used the PWD Schedule of 1979-80 for construction costs and suggested the yield capitalization method as the best valuation approach due to the property's outdated technology and specific use as a cold storage facility.
2. Adoption of Yield Capitalization Method versus Land and Building Method:
Shri K.C. Srivastava argued that the yield capitalization method should be adopted, emphasizing the property's commercial nature and the income it generates. He cited previous Tribunal decisions supporting the yield method for properties designed for specific business purposes. The Department's Valuation Officer, however, used the land and building method, adjusting land rates based on notifications and cost indices. The Tribunal concluded that the yield method was appropriate due to the property's specific use as a cold storage facility, directing the Wealth Tax Officer (WTO) to adopt this method using a multiplication factor of 12 times the net yield based on available capacity.
3. Deduction for Co-Ownership and Old Technology:
The Tribunal considered the deductions proposed by the approved valuer for co-ownership, old technology, and other factors affecting the property's value. The CIT(A) had allowed a 40% deduction based on these factors, which the Department contested. The Tribunal upheld the need for such deductions, acknowledging the property's limitations and the challenges in selling a co-owned property.
4. Valuation of Town Hall Property:
For the assessment year 1980-81, the valuation of the Town Hall property, which comprises several rented shops, was contested. The CIT(A) had capitalized the rental income to determine the property's value. The Tribunal confirmed this approach, stating that rent capitalization is the most suitable method for fully tenanted commercial properties.
5. Deduction under Section 5(1)(iv) for Property:
In the case of Shri Shanker Saran, the Tribunal addressed the deduction under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act. The deduction should be allowed at the option of the assessee, regardless of whether the property is owned directly by the assessee or included due to their share in the firm.
6. Estate Duty Liability and Initiation of Penalty Proceedings:
The claims regarding estate duty liability and initiation of penalty proceedings were not pressed by the assessees. The Tribunal noted that penalty proceedings are independent and not relevant to the present appeals.
Conclusion:
The appeals filed by the assessees were allowed, and those filed by the Department were dismissed. The Tribunal directed the WTO to adopt the yield capitalization method for valuing the cold storage property and confirmed the CIT(A)'s approach for the Town Hall property valuation. The deduction under section 5(1)(iv) was to be allowed at the assessee's option.
-
1993 (9) TMI 160
Business Connection, Business Income, Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, Estimated Income, Expenditure Incurred, Fees For Technical Services, Foreign Company, Income Deemed To Accrue Or Arise In India, Income From Business, Indian Company, Permanent Establishment, Set Off Of Loss
-
1993 (9) TMI 159
Issues Involved:
1. Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Levy of penalty under section 273(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):
Facts and Background:
The assessee, an HUF, initially filed a return declaring a net income of Rs. 4,28,190, claiming a deduction of Rs. 5,00,000 under section 35CCA for a donation to Ramakrishna Vivekananda Mission. Later, the assessee revised the return, withdrawing the deduction claim, stating that the donation did not reach the Mission. The Assessing Officer (AO) held that the assessee made a bogus claim to reduce tax liability, initiated penalty proceedings, and imposed a penalty at the maximum rate.
Arguments by Assessee:
- The assessee contended that the donation was genuine and made in good faith.
- The assessee revised the return voluntarily before any detection by the department.
- The assessee cited several case laws to support the argument that the revision was voluntary and bona fide.
- The assessee argued that the penalty could not be imposed based on preponderance of probabilities.
Arguments by Department:
- The department argued that the revision was not voluntary but prompted by departmental searches and investigations.
- The department maintained that the assessee conspired with others to make a false claim.
- The department cited statements and documents to support their claim of conspiracy.
Tribunal's Findings:
- The Tribunal found that the assessee had a bona fide intention to make a genuine donation.
- There was no evidence to suggest that the assessee was involved in the illegal diversion of donations.
- The Tribunal noted that the department's suspicion was based on general prejudice rather than specific evidence against the assessee.
- The Tribunal held that the revised return was filed voluntarily and before any detection of concealment by the department.
- The Tribunal distinguished the case from Varun Enterprises, where the penalty was upheld based on preponderance of probabilities.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not exigible as the assessee's claim was bona fide, and the revised return was filed voluntarily.
2. Levy of Penalty under Section 273(2)(a):
Facts and Background:
The AO imposed a penalty under section 273(2)(a) for furnishing an estimate of advance tax that the assessee knew or had reason to believe was untrue.
Arguments by Assessee:
- The assessee argued that the penalty under section 273(2)(a) was consequential to the penalty under section 271(1)(c).
- Since the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified, the penalty under section 273(2)(a) should also be deleted.
Arguments by Department:
- The department did not dispute the assessee's contention that the penalty under section 273(2)(a) was consequential.
Tribunal's Findings:
- The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the penalty under section 273(2)(a) was consequential to the penalty under section 271(1)(c).
Conclusion:
The Tribunal deleted the penalty under section 273(2)(a) as it was consequential to the penalty under section 271(1)(c).
Final Judgment:
Both appeals by the assessee were allowed, and the penalties under sections 271(1)(c) and 273(2)(a) were deleted.
-
1993 (9) TMI 158
Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of income from construction activities in Libya.
2. Claim for weighted deduction on expenses incurred on a project in Libya.
3. Claim of investment allowance on machinery.
4. Levy of interest under sections 139(8) and 217 of the Income-tax Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Taxability of Income from Construction Activities in Libya:
The primary issue is whether the income from construction activities carried out in Libya is taxable in both India and Libya or only in Libya. The assessee-company argued that the income should be excluded from Indian income-tax under the Avoidance of Double Taxation Treaty (ADT) between India and Libya. The revenue contended that the income is assessable under the Indian Income-tax Act, with the assessee entitled to a tax credit for the tax paid in Libya.
The contract receipt from Libya was Rs. 75,95,122, with a profit of Rs. 6,59,718 shown by the assessee. The Assessing Officer estimated the net profit from the Libyan contract at 10% of the contract receipts and did not apply the ADT agreement. The CIT(A) concluded that the agreement allowed for taxing business profits in both countries, with the assessee entitled to credit for the tax paid in Libya.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and the ADT. Article VI of the ADT indicated that business profits are taxable in both the Contracting States, limited to the profits attributable to the permanent establishment. The Tribunal found no ambiguity in the ADT, concluding that the assessee's income from Libya is taxable in both Libya and India, with relief provided by way of tax credit as per Article XX of the ADT. The appeal of the assessee on this issue was rejected, and the revenue's stance was upheld.
2. Claim for Weighted Deduction on Expenses Incurred on a Project in Libya:
The assessee claimed a weighted deduction on expenses of Rs. 1,57,175 incurred on the construction of a Sub-Electric Station project in Libya. The authorities below rejected this claim, reasoning that section 35B of the Income-tax Act permits weighted deduction only for expenses incurred in the promotion of exports, not for the cost of services or goods themselves.
The Tribunal agreed with the authorities, stating that the claim was not tenable under section 35B, and thus, the claim for weighted deduction was rejected.
3. Claim of Investment Allowance on Machinery:
The assessee's claim for investment allowance on machinery added during the year did not arise from the order of the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal rejected this claim.
4. Levy of Interest under Sections 139(8) and 217 of the Income-tax Act:
The levy of interest under sections 139(8) and 217 of the Act was stated to be consequential. The Tribunal directed the assessing officer to recalculate the interest while giving effect to this order.
Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee was rejected, while the department's appeals were allowed. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1985-86, holding that the income from Libya is taxable in both Libya and India, with appropriate tax credit relief.
-
1993 (9) TMI 157
Issues:
1. Disallowance of expenditure in respect of discontinued business.
2. Interpretation of section 176(3A) regarding taxation of receipts after discontinuance of business.
3. Allowability of deduction for expenses incurred in connection with the award.
4. Applicability of court decisions in determining the tax treatment of income after business discontinuance.
Analysis:
1. The appeal involved the disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 15,000 in connection with a discontinued contract business. The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure due to lack of supporting vouchers and applicability of section 176(3A) which deems sums received after business discontinuance as taxable income.
2. The interpretation of section 176(3A) was crucial in determining the tax treatment of receipts post business discontinuance. The Tribunal analyzed the section, emphasizing that the taxable income should be the net income computed after deducting the expenditure incurred for earning such income, not the entire receipt amount.
3. The assessee had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 55,000 in connection with an arbitration award. The CIT(A) allowed the deduction, stating that the expenditure was justified and supported by evidence. The Tribunal upheld this decision, citing a similar case where expenditure related to arbitration was considered deductible.
4. The Tribunal differentiated the current case from previous court decisions that disallowed post-discontinuance business expenses. It highlighted a Rajasthan High Court case where it was held that for tax assessment purposes, expenditure should be excluded from the received amount. The Tribunal aligned with this principle and upheld the allowance of expenditure in the current case.
5. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the revenue, affirming the decision to allow the expenditure in respect of the awarded sum. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was also dismissed as it merely supported the CIT(A)'s order without seeking separate relief. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the legal provisions and relevant court decisions, ensuring a fair and just outcome in the matter.
-
1993 (9) TMI 156
Issues Involved:
1. Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81.
2. Alleged income from toddy business in Alwaye range.
3. Alleged income from Archana Jewellery.
4. Non-inclusion of minor children's share income from Silpi Movies.
5. Unexplained investments and deposits.
6. Income from house property and self-occupied property.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):
The primary issue in these appeals is the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81. The assessee contended that the penalty was unjustified as the revenue failed to establish that the assessee had concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal confirmed the additions in the quantum appeal, which formed the basis for the penalty.
2. Alleged Income from Toddy Business in Alwaye Range:
The Income-tax Officer (ITO) proposed to levy a penalty based on the addition of income from toddy business in Alwaye range. The assessee argued that the presumptions under section 132(4A) could not be extended to penalty proceedings and that the revenue failed to establish the nexus between the assessee and the toddy business. The Tribunal found that the revenue did not examine the persons mentioned in the seized documents or make sufficient enquiries with the Excise Department. The Tribunal held that the presumptions under section 132(4A) are limited to search and seizure proceedings and cannot be used to levy penalties. Therefore, the penalty related to the toddy business was deleted.
3. Alleged Income from Archana Jewellery:
The ITO concluded that Archana Jewellery was a benami business of the assessee based on seized documents and monetary transactions between the assessee and Archana Jewellery. The assessee explained that the documents were in his possession because of his nephew, who worked at Archana Jewellery. The Tribunal observed that the revenue did not examine the nephew or other relevant persons and relied on presumptions. The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to establish that the business belonged to the assessee and cancelled the penalty related to Archana Jewellery.
4. Non-inclusion of Minor Children's Share Income from Silpi Movies:
The assessee did not include the income of his minor children from Silpi Movies in his return, claiming it was an accidental omission. The ITO included the estimated share income of the minors in the assessee's total income. The Tribunal noted that the proper procedure would have been to assess the firm first and then include the minors' share in the assessee's income. The Tribunal held that the inclusion of minors' income without assessing the firm was flawed and deleted the penalty.
5. Unexplained Investments and Deposits:
The ITO added unexplained investments and deposits to the assessee's income, which were later telescoped into other additions. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided explanations for these investments and deposits, which were not found to be false. The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to establish concealment of income and cancelled the penalty.
6. Income from House Property and Self-occupied Property:
The assessee admitted an income of Rs. 720 from let-out property, which the ITO increased to Rs. 2,700 on an agreed basis. For the self-occupied property, the ITO estimated a notional income of Rs. 800. The Tribunal noted that the income from the let-out property for the subsequent year was accepted at Rs. 720 and that the omission to include the notional income from the self-occupied property was accidental. The Tribunal held that no penalty was leviable on these additions.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals, cancelling the penalties levied under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81, as the revenue failed to establish that the assessee had concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income.
-
1993 (9) TMI 155
Issues:
Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 based on wealth-tax records
Limitation period for invoking section 263 for assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85
Jurisdiction Issue:
The case involved appeals by the assessee against the Commissioner of Income-tax's order under section 263 for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85. The Commissioner revised the orders of the Assessing Officer due to a lack of nexus between borrowings and investments, and the failure to determine the appropriate section for deduction. The Commissioner relied on wealth-tax records to reach this decision. The learned Chartered Accountant argued that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction as wealth-tax records are not under the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal agreed, citing the Explanation to section 263(1) and the limited scope of the Commissioner's authority under section 263 to records related to income-tax proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction based on wealth-tax records, leading to the failure of the orders under section 263.
Limitation Issue:
Regarding the limitation period for invoking section 263, the original assessments for the years 1983-84 and 1984-85 were completed on 31-1-1986 and 23-7-1986, respectively. The reassessments did not include the deduction of interest allowed in the original assessments. The Tribunal considered the argument that the power to revise the assessment should be exercised within two years from the end of the financial year in which the original assessment was made. Citing the decision in CIT v. Sun Engg. Works (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal held that matters settled in the original assessment and not revisited in reassessment are final. Therefore, the order under section 263 for the assessment year 1983-84, passed on 20-2-1989, was deemed barred by limitation as the original assessment was completed by 31-1-1986. However, the order for the assessment year 1984-85 was within the time allowed under section 263(2) of the IT Act. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the contention of the assessee for the first year but rejected it for the second year on the issue of limitation.
In conclusion, the appeals were allowed based on the lack of jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax to invoke section 263 using wealth-tax records and the limitation period for the assessment year 1983-84.
-
1993 (9) TMI 154
Issues Involved:
1. Refusal to grant registration to the assessee-firm.
2. Determination of the genuine nature of the partnership.
3. Assessment of the entire income in the hands of Sri George Varghese.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Refusal to Grant Registration to the Assessee-Firm:
The primary issue is the refusal to grant registration to the assessee-firm under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The firm, governed by a partnership deed executed on 5-5-1983, took over the proprietary business of Sri George Varghese. The partners, Smt. Sosamma Varghese and Smt. Nimmi George, applied for registration in the prescribed form and within the prescribed time. However, the Income-tax Officer, after examining the partners, concluded that the firm existed only on paper and did not represent the real state of affairs. This conclusion was based on the deposition of Smt. Sosamma Varghese, who seemed confused about the actual constitution of the partnership and did not bring any capital or investment into the firm. The Dy. CIT(Appeals) upheld this decision, asserting that the partnership was a cloak to divert income and that the business belonged to Sri George Varghese.
2. Determination of the Genuine Nature of the Partnership:
The assessee contended that the partnership was genuine and cited several legal precedents to support their claim. The Tribunal examined the depositions of Smt. Sosamma Varghese and Smt. Nimmi George. Despite some initial confusion in Smt. Sosamma Varghese's statements, the Tribunal noted that her advanced age could account for the discrepancies. When read as a whole, her deposition, alongside Smt. Nimmi George's clear answers, did not indicate that Sri George Varghese was a partner. The Tribunal referenced the Madras High Court's decision in S.S.A. Gangamirthammal & Co., which emphasized that the genuineness of a partnership should not be dismissed based on minor inconsistencies in the statements of aged partners. The Tribunal concluded that the partnership was genuine, noting that partners often appoint managers or agents to conduct business, which was the case here with Sri George Varghese.
3. Assessment of the Entire Income in the Hands of Sri George Varghese:
The Dy. CIT(Appeals) had directed that the entire income of the firm be assessed in the hands of Sri George Varghese, asserting that he controlled the business and finances. However, the Tribunal found this direction to be beyond the scope of the Dy. CIT(Appeals)'s jurisdiction. The Tribunal clarified that while the CIT(Appeals) has co-terminus powers with the Income-tax Officer, these powers are limited to the subject matter of the appeal and the appellant. Since Sri George Varghese was not the appellant, the direction to assess the income in his hands was vacated.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the order of the Dy. CIT(Appeals) and directed the Income-tax Officer to grant registration to the assessee-firm. The Tribunal's decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of the depositions, legal precedents, and the roles and responsibilities of the partners and agents within the firm. The Tribunal emphasized that minor inconsistencies in the statements of aged partners should not undermine the genuineness of a partnership.
-
1993 (9) TMI 153
Issues Involved:
1. Exemption of profit earned on the sale of import entitlement.
2. Addition of Rs. 7,400 under section 40A(3) of the IT Act.
3. Disallowance of Rs. 24,53,232 under section 43B on account of sales tax.
4. Disallowance of Rs. 2,500 for advertisement in souvenir and contribution to employees.
5. Disallowance of Rs. 64,761 as entertainment expenditure.
6. Disallowance of Rs. 1,500 paid to the Employees' Union of New Bank of India.
7. Inclusion of insurance of cars and salary paid to drivers under section 37(3A).
8. Disallowance of extra shift allowance on pipeline fittings of Rs. 7,21,412.
9. Disallowance of investment allowance on electric installations.
10. Addition of Rs. 3 lakhs on account of sale of scrap.
11. Disallowance of weighted deduction under section 35B on foreign commission.
12. Withdrawal of investment allowance on weighing bridge and weighing machine.
13. Levy of interest under sections 139(8) and 215.
14. Exemption of cash subsidy (CCS) received by the appellant.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Exemption of profit earned on the sale of import entitlement:
The assessee contested the inclusion of Rs. 23,30,465 earned from the sale of import entitlements as taxable income, arguing it was a capital receipt. The Tribunal noted that previous judicial pronouncements and the ITAT's own decision for the assessment year 1983-84 treated such receipts as revenue and taxable under section 28(iv) of the IT Act. The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the CIT (Appeals) for reconsideration after the Finance Bill, which proposed amendments affecting this matter, was passed.
2. Addition of Rs. 7,400 under section 40A(3) of the IT Act:
The assessee made cash payments exceeding Rs. 2,500, which were disallowed under section 40A(3). The CIT (Appeals) upheld the disallowance, noting the absence of exceptional circumstances and the failure to produce necessary certificates. The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance, finding no justification for the cash payments.
3. Disallowance of Rs. 24,53,232 under section 43B on account of sales tax:
The assessee collected sales tax but did not deposit it with the government, leading to a disallowance under section 43B. The CIT (Appeals) confirmed the addition, referencing the ITAT's decision for the previous year and the mandatory nature of section 43B. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, emphasizing the clear statutory requirement.
4. Disallowance of Rs. 2,500 for advertisement in souvenir and contribution to employees:
The assessee's expenditure on advertisements in souvenirs and contributions to employees was disallowed as it was not proven to be for advertisement purposes. The CIT (Appeals) upheld the disallowance due to a lack of evidence linking the expenditure to business activities. The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance, finding no grounds for interference.
5. Disallowance of Rs. 64,761 as entertainment expenditure:
The assessee's claim for sales promotion expenses, including entertainment, was partly disallowed. The CIT (Appeals) allowed partial relief but confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 64,761. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, noting that the assessee failed to justify the expenditure as non-entertainment.
6. Disallowance of Rs. 1,500 paid to the Employees' Union of New Bank of India:
The assessee's contribution to the employees' union was disallowed as non-business expenditure. The CIT (Appeals) upheld the disallowance. The Tribunal, however, allowed the deduction, recognizing the commercial expediency and direct nexus to the business activity.
7. Inclusion of insurance of cars and salary paid to drivers under section 37(3A):
The CIT (Appeals) included the expenditure on car insurance and drivers' salaries in the disallowance calculation under section 37(3A). The Tribunal upheld this inclusion, interpreting the statutory provisions to encompass such expenses as part of running and maintenance costs.
8. Disallowance of extra shift allowance on pipeline fittings of Rs. 7,21,412:
The assessee's claim for extra shift allowance on pipeline fittings was disallowed, with the CIT (Appeals) interpreting the relevant depreciation rules to exclude such items. The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance, agreeing with the interpretation that pipeline fittings were not eligible for extra shift allowance.
9. Disallowance of investment allowance on electric installations:
The CIT (Appeals) disallowed the investment allowance on electric installations, treating them as part of the building account rather than plant and machinery. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting the proper classification and depreciation treatment.
10. Addition of Rs. 3 lakhs on account of sale of scrap:
The IAC (Asst.) added Rs. 3 lakhs to the assessee's income, suspecting unaccounted sales of scrap due to a lack of quantitative details. The CIT (Appeals) confirmed the addition. The Tribunal, however, reduced the addition to Rs. 2 lakhs, acknowledging the assessee's consistent accounting method and the absence of concrete evidence of suppression.
11. Disallowance of weighted deduction under section 35B on foreign commission:
The assessee's claim for weighted deduction on foreign commission was disallowed. The CIT (Appeals) upheld the disallowance, referencing judicial precedents. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT (Appeals) for reconsideration, instructing a review of relevant circulars and judicial findings.
12. Withdrawal of investment allowance on weighing bridge and weighing machine:
The CIT (Appeals) withdrew the investment allowance on the weighing bridge and weighing machine, previously allowed by the IAC. The Tribunal reversed this decision, citing the ITAT's precedent favoring the assessee and the absence of a clear legislative prohibition.
13. Levy of interest under sections 139(8) and 215:
The CIT (Appeals) directed the IAC to levy interest after recomputation of income. The Tribunal confirmed this direction, with a modification to align it with the present order.
14. Exemption of cash subsidy (CCS) received by the appellant:
The Tribunal remitted the issue of CCS exemption back to the CIT (Appeals) for reconsideration, aligning it with the treatment of the sale of import entitlements. The CIT (Appeals) was directed to decide the matter in accordance with the final legislative provisions.
Separate Judgments:
- The Judicial Member and the Accountant Member delivered separate judgments on certain issues, leading to differences in opinion. The Third Member resolved these differences, aligning with the Judicial Member on the applicability of the amended law for CCS and agreeing with the Accountant Member on the treatment of sales tax under section 43B, the inclusion of sales promotion expenses under section 37(3A), the allowance of extra shift on pipeline fittings, and the deletion of the addition on account of sale of scrap.
-
1993 (9) TMI 152
Issues Involved: Assessment of interest on delay in payment of call money, inclusion of forfeited amount and premium in total income.
Assessment of Interest on Delay in Payment of Call Money:
The appeal related to the assessment year 1984-85 where the assessee, a public limited company, received interest on delay in payment of call money from shareholders. The amount claimed as not taxable was brought to tax by the ITO and CIT(A) based on a previous Tribunal order. The Tribunal upheld the decision against the assessee citing the previous order.
Inclusion of Forfeited Amount and Premium in Total Income:
During assessment, the assessee claimed that the forfeited amount and premium received on re-issue of forfeited shares were capital receipts exempt from tax. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) disagreed. However, the Tribunal found that the amounts were not taxable as they were related to the capital structure of the company, not arising from regular trading activities.
The legal analysis delved into the Company Law provisions regarding forfeiture of shares, emphasizing that such actions are not business transactions but relate to the capital structure of the company. Citing various legal precedents, including decisions by the Lahore High Court and the Supreme Court, it was established that profits from forfeiture of shares and receipt of premium on re-issued shares are capital receipts not subject to tax.
The judgment highlighted the treatment of share premium under the Companies Act and Surtax Act, indicating that share premium is considered part of the company's capital structure and not taxable as income. Relying on legal interpretations and precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the amounts in question should be excluded from the total income of the assessee-company, thereby partly allowing the appeal.
............
|
9911796707
