|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 374 Records
-
1994 (11) TMI 174
Issues:
Calculation of standard deduction under section 16 of the IT Act for an employee director in two companies.
Analysis:
The main issue in this case is determining the correct standard deduction allowable to the assessee under section 16 of the IT Act. The assessee, an employee director in two companies, claimed a standard deduction of Rs. 12,000, while the Assessing Officer granted only Rs. 1,000 based on the presumption that the assessee used the company's car for personal purposes. The appellant argued that the cars were not required for personal use as one company's car was partly used for personal purposes, as evidenced by the depreciation chart. The Assessing Officer did not consider this evidence and assumed personal use of the company's car. The appellant contended that standard deduction should be allowed at Rs. 12,000 or at least Rs. 11,800.
The CIT(A) granted full deduction at Rs. 12,000 for the previous assessment year, and the current appeal was filed by the Revenue against this decision. During the appeal, the Departmental Representative failed to produce any resolution permitting the assessee to use the company's car for personal use. The counsel for the assessee argued that the motor car should be provided specifically by the employer for the deduction to apply. Additionally, one of the employers had no car in the relevant year, making it impossible for that company to provide a car to the assessee. Referring to a previous Tribunal decision, the counsel asserted that the assessee is entitled to full standard deduction under section 16(i) of the IT Act.
The Tribunal decision cited clarified that income from each employment should be separately calculated, and standard deduction is allowed for expenses incidental to employment. The Tribunal's decision in a similar case supported the assessee's entitlement to full standard deduction. The counsel also highlighted that for the previous assessment year, the CIT(A) had granted full standard deduction to the assessee, and this decision was final as no appeal was filed by the Revenue. After considering all arguments and evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A)'s order was justified, and the appeal was dismissed.
-
1994 (11) TMI 173
Issues:
1. Refusal of registration to the assessee for assessment year 1982-83.
2. Dispute regarding distribution of profits and genuineness of the firm.
3. Interpretation of provisions under sections 184 and 185 of the Income Tax Act.
4. Comparison with relevant case laws such as Khanjan Lal Sewak Ram case.
5. Examination of the certificate requirements for registration under Form No. 11.
6. Analysis of different judgments related to registration of firms.
Detailed Analysis:
The judgment concerns the challenge against the refusal of registration to the assessee for the assessment year 1982-83. The dispute revolves around the distribution of profits and the genuineness of the firm. The Assessing Officer contended that the profits were not distributed as per the partnership deed, leading to the refusal of registration. The CIT (Appeals) upheld this decision based on the belief that the profits were not divided in accordance with the constitution specified in the deed of partnership. The Assessing Officer also argued that the income shown in the hands of the trust actually belonged to the assessee-firm, justifying the refusal of registration.
The main contention of the assessee was that the firm was validly constituted and genuine, meeting the requirements under sections 184 and 185 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that there was no conclusive evidence to prove the firm was not genuine, citing various case laws to support this claim. The Departmental Representative, however, supported the order of the CIT (Appeals) by emphasizing that the profits were not distributed as per the partnership deed, justifying the refusal of registration for the initial year.
The judgment delves into the provisions of sections 184 and 185 of the Income Tax Act, outlining the essential conditions for registration of a firm. It highlights the requirement of an application to be made on behalf of the firm, the necessity of a partnership deed, and the validity and genuineness of the partnership. The judgment also analyzes the certificate requirements specified in Form No. 11, emphasizing the declaration regarding the distribution of profits as a crucial aspect of registration.
Furthermore, the judgment references the case of Khanjan Lal Sewak Ram to draw parallels with the present case. It discusses the importance of complying with the conditions prescribed in the partnership deed and the implications of not sharing profits amongst partners. The judgment distinguishes the present case from other cited judgments, emphasizing the unique circumstances surrounding the refusal of registration based on profit distribution and genuineness of the firm.
In conclusion, the judgment allows the appeal, overturning the decision of the CIT (Appeals) and granting registration to the firm. It emphasizes the genuineness of the firm and the absence of evidence to prove otherwise, ultimately leading to the reversal of the refusal of registration for the assessment year in question.
-
1994 (11) TMI 172
Issues:
1. Confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(a) by DC (Appeals).
2. Change in method of accounting from mercantile to cash.
3. Justification for penalty imposition.
4. Comparison with a similar trust case.
5. Arguments by both parties regarding penalty cancellation.
6. Tribunal's decision on the deliberate attempt to avoid taxes.
7. Distinction from previous cases and justification for penalty imposition.
8. Conclusion upholding the penalty under section 271(1)(c).
Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the confirmation of a penalty of Rs. 13,620 imposed on the assessee under section 271(1)(a) by the DC (Appeals). The assessee was assessed as an AOP on an income of Rs. 41,320, with a deficit initially declared in the return. The penalty was imposed due to late filing of the return after a notice under section 148 was issued.
2. The assessee changed the method of accounting from mercantile to cash during the assessment year, leading to rejection by the Income-tax Officer. The change was perceived as an attempt to avoid tax on interest receivable. Investments were made in companies controlled by trustees, with no steps taken to recover interest due, resulting in an addition of Rs. 43,656 as "accrued interest."
3. The penalty imposition was justified based on the late filing of the return and the deliberate attempt to avoid tax obligations. The DC (Appeals) confirmed the penalty as the assessee's counsel failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the return.
4. The assessee's counsel compared the case with a similar trust case, arguing for penalty deletion based on a Tribunal decision. The counsel cited previous judgments and contended that the penalty should be deleted in line with the cited Tribunal order.
5. Both parties presented arguments regarding the cancellation of the penalty. The counsel for the assessee relied on the Tribunal's decision in a connected trust case, emphasizing the similarity in circumstances and seeking penalty deletion. The Departmental Representative supported the penalty imposition, citing lack of bona fide intent in changing the accounting method.
6. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee deliberately attempted to avoid tax payments by switching accounting methods. The Tribunal distinguished previous cases and upheld the penalty based on the deliberate nature of the change in accounting method to evade tax liabilities.
7. The Tribunal found that the assessee's actions were not bona fide and aimed at tax avoidance. Distinctions were drawn from previous cases cited by the assessee's counsel, emphasizing the deliberate nature of the accounting method change to evade tax payments.
8. The Tribunal upheld the penalty under section 271(1)(c) due to the deliberate avoidance of filing the income tax return on time and the accurate assessment of income above the taxable limit. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the penalty imposition.
-
1994 (11) TMI 171
Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of the remitted amount under the collaboration agreement.
2. Validity and effectiveness of the collaboration agreement.
3. Nature of the remitted amount (whether it constitutes "royalty" or "fees for technical services").
4. Existence of a "permanent establishment" in India.
5. Applicability of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
Detailed Analysis:
1. Taxability of the Remitted Amount:
The central issue was whether the remitted amount of yen 2,26,87,500 from Modipon Limited to Unitika Limited was taxable in India. The Assessing Officer initially held that the agreement between the parties was null and void due to non-payment within 90 days and thus subjected the entire sum to tax without specifying any head. The CIT(A), however, held that the agreement did not become null and void and that the payments were received for services rendered by the appellant, thus taxable under DTAA.
2. Validity and Effectiveness of the Collaboration Agreement:
The collaboration agreement dated 21-6-1983 between Unitika and Modipon stipulated that it would become effective after the first installment was paid. Modipon remitted only 25% of the first installment, and no further payments were made. The CIT(A) held that the agreement continued to be effective beyond the accounting year and that the payments were received for services rendered. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the agreement did not come into operation as the full first installment was not paid, and thus no services were rendered.
3. Nature of the Remitted Amount:
The Tribunal examined whether the remitted amount could be considered "royalty" or "fees for technical services." It was concluded that the amount could not be treated as such because no services were rendered, and the agreement stipulated an outright transfer of designs, not merely a license to use them. The Tribunal held that for an amount to be considered "royalty" or "fees for technical services," actual services must be rendered, which was not the case here.
4. Existence of a "Permanent Establishment" in India:
The CIT(A) held that the collaboration agreement constituted a "permanent establishment" in India, as it involved construction, erection, or assembly projects. The Tribunal, however, found that no such activities were carried out by Unitika in India, and thus, the company did not have a "permanent establishment" in India as defined under DTAA. The Tribunal emphasized that the term "carries" in the context of construction or assembly projects denotes actual activity, which did not occur.
5. Applicability of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA):
The Tribunal agreed that the income of the assessee should be computed with reference to DTAA between India and Japan. It was concluded that the remitted amount could only be treated as "industrial or commercial profits" under DTAA, and since Unitika did not have a "permanent establishment" in India, the amount could not be taxed in India.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the amount remitted by Modipon to Unitika could not be charged to tax under the provisions of DTAA. The assessee's appeal was allowed, and the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
-
1994 (11) TMI 170
Issues:
Claim for deduction under section 80C(2)(h)(ii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis:
The appeal was made against the order passed by the CIT(A) on various grounds, with the main issue being the claim for deduction under section 80C(2)(h)(ii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appellant, an Advocate and member of a housing society, had paid an installment towards a flat allotted to him during the assessment year under consideration. The ITO rejected the claim as the flat's construction was not completed during that year, and no income was taxable under the head "Income from house property." The DCIT(A) upheld the decision ex parte due to the appellant's non-cooperative attitude. The appellant only pressed the ground related to the deduction claim during the hearing, leading to the Tribunal's consideration of this main issue.
The relevant provision of the Act, section 80C(2)(h)(ii)(b), allows deductions for payments made towards the purchase or construction of a residential property where the construction is completed after a specified date. The appellant argued that the flat's possession occurred in a subsequent year, and the term "chargeable" in the provision did not require actual income but potential income under the head "Income from house property." The appellant satisfied the conditions of the provision by paying the installment to the housing society, and the construction was completed after the specified date.
The learned D.R. contended that no deduction was allowable until construction completion and physical possession. However, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments. It noted that the provision required completion of construction after a specific date and income being chargeable under the head "Income from house property." The Tribunal agreed with the appellant that the term used was "chargeable," not "charged," indicating potential income. It also recognized the common practice of possession being granted only after full payment, making the deduction provision workable. The Tribunal held that the appellant's claim met the provision's conditions and directed the ITO to allow the necessary relief. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed, focusing on the deduction claim under section 80C(2)(h)(ii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
-
1994 (11) TMI 169
Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of the amount received as advances for reimbursable expenses.
2. Levy of interest under Sections 215 and 216 of the Income-tax Act.
3. Deduction of expenses incurred for earning remuneration.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Taxability of the Amount Received as Advances for Reimbursable Expenses:
The assessee, an individual who worked as a consultant for a Moroccan company (OCP), received Rs. 7,98,717 as advances for expenses to be incurred on behalf of the company. The Assessing Officer added this entire amount to the assessee's income, suspecting it to be a facade for tax evasion. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] sustained the addition but allowed deductions for expenses incurred.
The Tribunal examined the agreement dated 14-3-1986, which stipulated a monthly consultancy fee of Rs. 40,000 and reimbursement of expenses against justificative vouchers. The Tribunal noted that the assessee maintained regular books of accounts and that the advances were received through normal banking channels. It was also observed that the expenses were indeed incurred on behalf of OCP and that the vouchers were approved by OCP, albeit with some disallowances.
The Tribunal concluded that the advances were not of a trading nature and hence not taxable. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the initial character of the receipt, stating that if it is of a trading nature, it would be taxable. However, in this case, the advances were meant for reimbursable expenses and were not the assessee's income. The Tribunal thus deleted the addition of Rs. 6,22,795 sustained by the CIT(A).
2. Levy of Interest Under Sections 215 and 216 of the Income-tax Act:
The assessee contested the interest charged under Sections 215 and 216. The assessee argued that the advance tax was paid in three installments and that there was no understatement of advance tax payable in the first two installments.
The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the assessee's income consisted of fixed remuneration from OCP, and the understatement in the first two installments was not justified. The Tribunal upheld the levy of interest under Section 216 but directed the Assessing Officer to modify the interest under Section 215 in view of the relief allowed.
3. Deduction of Expenses Incurred for Earning Remuneration:
The CIT(A) had directed the Assessing Officer to allow a deduction of Rs. 1,75,922 for expenses incurred by the assessee for earning remuneration from OCP. However, the Tribunal, in light of its finding that the entire amount of Rs. 7,98,717 was not taxable, concluded that the expenses allowed by the CIT(A) were also not allowable. Consequently, the department's appeal was allowed on different grounds.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the addition of Rs. 6,22,795 and upholding the levy of interest under Section 216 while directing modification of interest under Section 215. The department's appeal was also allowed, disallowing the deduction of Rs. 1,75,922 for expenses incurred.
-
1994 (11) TMI 168
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 1,50,000 towards unexplained expenses on the marriage of the assessee's daughter.
2. Addition of Rs. 42,000 towards unexplained household expenditure.
3. Estimation of income from house property.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Addition of Rs. 1,50,000 towards unexplained expenses on the marriage of the assessee's daughter:
The appellant, an individual and Managing Director of D. S. Construction Pvt. Ltd., did not account for marriage expenses of his daughter, except for Rs. 83,304.60 paid to Hotel Taj, debited to his father's account in the company's books. The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 1,50,000, citing disbelief that only hotel expenses were incurred for the marriage of a person of the assessee's status. The AO estimated the expenses considering the social status and financial position of the assessee, noting the lack of details on other customary expenses like clothes, jewelry, and presents.
The CIT(A) upheld this addition, agreeing that the marriage was performed with great pomp and show, justifying the estimated expenses.
During the hearing, the assessee's counsel argued that no expenditure was incurred by the assessee, and the AO's estimate lacked basis. The counsel also emphasized that no evidence of excess cash or expenses was found during a search conducted three weeks after the marriage. Additionally, the AO relied on the statement of the assessee's wife without confronting the assessee, which was argued as illegal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide detailed replies to the AO's specific queries about the marriage expenses. The evasive responses led to an adverse inference by the AO. The Tribunal agreed with the AO's estimation, citing the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Madan Lal v. CIT, which supports the AO's approach in estimating reasonable expenditure when the assessee provides inadequate information.
The Tribunal concluded that the AO was justified in estimating the unexplained expenditure on the marriage and upheld the addition of Rs. 1,50,000.
2. Addition of Rs. 42,000 towards unexplained household expenditure:
The AO observed that the assessee's family included his wife and three children, with monthly withdrawals shown as Rs. 2,000. The AO found that two children were studying outside Delhi, with Rs. 4,000 per month sent for their expenses, based on the statement of the assessee's wife. Consequently, the AO added Rs. 42,000 towards unexplained household expenditure.
The CIT(A) upheld the addition, noting that the household expenses shown by the assessee were grossly understated, considering the status of the assessee and the prevailing high prices.
The assessee's counsel argued that the addition was based solely on the statement of the assessee's wife, which was not supplied to the assessee. Alternatively, it was argued that the amount was sent from the office, and hence, no addition was justified.
The Tribunal found that the statement relied upon was of the assessee's wife, not a third party, and the fact that the children were studying outside Delhi was already in the assessee's knowledge. The assessee failed to provide evidence of the amount being sent from the office. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 42,000.
3. Estimation of income from house property:
The assessee challenged the estimation of income from house property, arguing that the Assessing Officer took the Annual Letting Value (ALV) at 10% of the Gross Total Income (GTI). The assessee submitted a computation showing the ALV based on municipal value, house tax, and repairs, resulting in a net income for 8 months and a 1/3rd share for each co-owner.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee himself had shown income from house property, estimating the ALV at 10% of GTI. The AO also took the ALV at 10% of GTI without considering the actual ALV. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside this issue to the AO, directing him to compute the ALV of the self-occupied property. If the ALV is below 10% of GTI, the actual ALV should be taken, and if it exceeds 10% of GTI, it should be restricted to 10% of GTI.
Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed in part, with the Tribunal upholding the additions towards unexplained marriage and household expenditure while setting aside the issue of income from house property for recomputation by the AO.
-
1994 (11) TMI 167
Issues Involved:
1. Discrepancies in Sales Figures
2. Explanation and Evidence Provided by the Assessee
3. Actions and Findings of the Assessing Officer
4. Decision of the CIT(A)
5. Arguments by the Assessee's Counsel
6. Arguments by the Departmental Representative
7. Tribunal's Analysis and Findings
1. Discrepancies in Sales Figures:
A search and seizure operation under section 132 was carried out at the assessee's premises on 19-7-1989. During the search, a statement (Annexure A-24) was found and seized, which detailed the incentive bonus payable by the assessee to its distributors based on sales increases over targets. The Assessing Officer compared this statement with the sales register and found discrepancies in the sales figures for assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90. For 1988-89, discrepancies were found for three parties, totaling Rs. 18,84,175. For 1989-90, discrepancies were found for 17 parties, totaling Rs. 61,28,207.
2. Explanation and Evidence Provided by the Assessee:
The assessee explained that the discrepancies arose because the incentive bonus was calculated based on sales made directly to the distributors and sales made through other parties introduced by these distributors. The assessee provided a reconciliation statement and confirmations from two distributors for 1988-89. The assessee also maintained that proper records were kept, which formed part of the seized material. The explanation was supported by the books of account, sale bills, and a register showing the basic value of turnover for various dealers.
3. Actions and Findings of the Assessing Officer:
The Assessing Officer did not accept the assessee's explanation, considering it an "innovative one and afterthought." He concluded that the sales figures in the incentive bonus statement were correct and treated the difference as sales outside the books. The Assessing Officer added the difference to the income, including excise duty and sales tax for 1988-89, resulting in an addition of Rs. 24,87,111. For 1989-90, the addition was Rs. 61,28,207, without adding excise duty and sales tax.
4. Decision of the CIT(A):
The CIT(A) confirmed the Assessing Officer's view, stating that the assessee had not established that sales to other parties should be considered for working out the incentive bonus. For 1989-90, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 58,24,911 on account of suppressed sales but remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for verification of discrepancies for three parties.
5. Arguments by the Assessee's Counsel:
The assessee's counsel contended that the only basis for the additions was the incentive bonus statement seized during the search. The explanation provided was corroborated by two out of three dealers for 1988-89. The counsel argued that the Assessing Officer had not placed any material on record to rebut the assessee's claim and had acted arbitrarily. The counsel also pointed out that the assessee had been paying incentive bonuses on the same basis in the past, which had been accepted. The counsel relied on the J & K High Court decision in International Forest Co. v. CIT, arguing that the onus to prove suppression of sales was on the revenue.
6. Arguments by the Departmental Representative:
The Departmental Representative argued that the additions were rightly made based on the seized document. The burden to explain the discrepancies lay on the assessee, and this burden had not been discharged. The DR contended that no scheme for payment of incentive bonus was found or produced, and the assessee's claim was not supported by evidence. The DR also pointed out discrepancies in the amounts when the assessee included sales made to other dealers for computing incentive bonuses.
7. Tribunal's Analysis and Findings:
The Tribunal noted that the burden lies on the assessee to explain discrepancies found in documents seized during search operations. However, if the assessee furnishes an explanation supported by evidence, the onus shifts back to the revenue. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided a plausible explanation supported by books of account, sale bills, a register, and confirmations from two dealers. The Assessing Officer had not made further inquiries or collected material to rebut the assessee's claim. The Tribunal emphasized that fair assessments require objective consideration of the assessee's explanation and evidence. The Tribunal concluded that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were unwarranted and deleted the additions of Rs. 24,87,111 for 1988-89 and Rs. 61,28,207 for 1989-90 on account of suppressed sales.
-
1994 (11) TMI 166
Issues:
1. Assessment of capital gains for a company in liquidation.
2. Apportionment of sale consideration between accounting years.
3. Set off of unabsorbed loss against capital gains.
4. Determination of the cost of land for computing capital gains.
5. Disallowance of auditor's fees and fees paid to Government counsel.
6. Tax liability of the income of the liquidator.
Analysis:
1. Assessment of Capital Gains for a Company in Liquidation:
The appeal pertains to the assessment of capital gains for a company in liquidation for the assessment year 1988-89. The company's movable and immovable properties were sold to another entity as per the orders of the High Court. The dispute arose regarding the apportionment of the sale consideration between the relevant accounting years. The Assessing Officer initially split the sale consideration between two years, but the CIT(A) held that it was a composite sale and the capital gains should be assessed in the year when all assets were handed over, i.e., in the assessment year 1988-89.
2. Apportionment of Sale Consideration Between Accounting Years:
The key issue was the apportionment of the sale consideration between the accounting years 1987-88 and 1988-89. The CIT(A) ruled in favor of assessing the capital gains in the year when all assets were handed over to the buyer, i.e., in the assessment year 1988-89. This decision was based on the fact that the entire sale consideration was received during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1988-89.
3. Set Off of Unabsorbed Loss Against Capital Gains:
The assessee claimed for the set off of unabsorbed loss against the capital gains assessed. The CIT(A) rejected this claim, citing various judicial precedents. However, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the adjustment of unabsorbed depreciation against the profits arising from the sale of assets, following a previous decision in a similar case.
4. Determination of the Cost of Land for Computing Capital Gains:
There was a discrepancy in the determination of the cost of land for computing capital gains. While the Assessing Officer used the book value of the land, the assessee contended that the market value of the land as on 1st April, 1974, should be considered. The Tribunal upheld the assessee's contention, directing the Assessing Officer to adopt the market value of the land as the cost of acquisition for computing capital gains.
5. Disallowance of Auditor's Fees and Fees Paid to Government Counsel:
Certain expenditures, including remuneration paid to auditors and fees paid to Government counsel, were disallowed by the Assessing Officer, and this disallowance was confirmed. The Tribunal sustained this disallowance based on relevant legal decisions.
6. Tax Liability of the Income of the Liquidator:
The issue of tax liability concerning the income of the liquidator was also raised. The assessee contended that the income of the company in liquidation is not liable to income tax, relying on a specific decision. However, the Tribunal upheld that the company's income in liquidation is liable to tax, differing from the assessee's argument.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, addressing various issues related to the assessment of capital gains, apportionment of sale consideration, set off of unabsorbed loss, determination of land cost, disallowance of certain expenditures, and the tax liability of the income of the liquidator.
-
1994 (11) TMI 165
Issues:
1. Reopening of assessments for asst. yrs. 1987-88 and 1988-89.
2. Allowance of relief on account of unexplained investment.
3. Disputed transactions outside the books of account.
4. Reconciliation of purchases and sales transactions.
5. Assessing Officer's additions and CIT(A)'s decision.
6. Controversy over unexplained purchases and profits.
7. CIT(A)'s findings and decision on the Revenue's appeal for asst. yr. 1988-89.
8. Deletion of additions by CIT(A) and final decision on all appeals.
Reopening of Assessments:
The judgment involves four appeals related to asst. yrs. 1987-88 and 1988-89, with two appeals filed by the assessee challenging the reopening of assessments. The Revenue's appeal for asst. yr. 1987-88 focused on the allowance of relief of Rs. 2,34,887 on account of unexplained investment, leading to detailed investigations into transactions with various parties from Rajasthan. The Assessing Officer reopened the proceedings under s. 143(2)(b) after obtaining necessary approval, based on discrepancies in purchases and sales outside the books of account.
Disputed Transactions and Additions:
The Assessing Officer made additions totaling Rs. 2,34,887 on account of unexplained purchases and Rs. 45,960 on unexplained profits, which were contested by the assessee. The CIT(A) examined the matter extensively, concluding that certain purchases were duly reflected in account books and that the controversy was limited to unexplained purchases of Rs. 1,67,475. The CIT(A) considered circumstantial evidence, the timing of transactions, and the credibility of the assessee's explanations to determine the legitimacy of the transactions.
CIT(A)'s Decision and Revenue's Appeal for 1988-89:
The CIT(A) upheld the deletion of the addition of Rs. 2,34,887 for asst. yr. 1987-88, citing reconciled accounts and lack of substantial evidence to support the Revenue's claims. In the appeal for asst. yr. 1988-89, the CIT(A) deleted the entire addition of Rs. 50,170, based on a detailed analysis of transactions with specific parties from Rajasthan and the assessee's offered profits. The CIT(A) found discrepancies in reflected purchases and actual transactions, leading to the deletion of the additional amount added by the Assessing Officer.
Final Decision and Dismissal of Appeals:
After considering submissions from both parties and reviewing the CIT(A)'s orders, the tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions to delete the contested additions in both years. The tribunal dismissed all four appeals-two by the assessee and two by the Revenue-concluding the legal proceedings related to the disputed assessments for the respective years.
-
1994 (11) TMI 164
Issues: Disallowance of claim of bad debts
In this case, the only effective ground of appeal pertains to the disallowance of a claim of bad debts amounting to Rs. 67,226 in the account of M/s Gian Chand Amir Chand for the assessment year 1986-87. The assessee initially did not make this claim in the return of income filed on 30th July 1986 but raised it during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer did not address this issue in the assessment order, and the learned CIT(A) did not receive comments from the Assessing Officer. The assessee argued that the debt had been decreed in their favor initially but was reversed on appeal by the District Judge. The CIT(A) held that a bad debt is deductible only if it was written off in the previous year, directing the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction in the year of write-off. The counsel for the assessee contended that the debt was bad, had been written off in a subsequent year, and should be allowed as a deduction for the relevant year. The Departmental Representative supported the impugned order.
Upon careful consideration, the tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions. It was acknowledged that the debt had indeed become bad, but the CIT(A) disallowed the deduction because it was not written off in the relevant year. The tribunal deemed this approach hyper-technical, emphasizing that if a debt is written off in a subsequent year but was determined to be bad in an earlier year, a rectificatory order must be passed to allow the deduction under the relevant provision. As the debt was written off in the subsequent year and had become bad in the year under consideration, the tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the bad debt of Rs. 67,226 as a deduction for the assessment year 1986-87. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.
-
1994 (11) TMI 163
Issues Involved:
1. Valuation of equity shares of M/s Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd.
2. Valuation of equity shares of M/s Highway Cycle Industries Ltd.
3. Exemption under section 5(1)(xxa) of the Wealth-tax Act for equity shares of M/s Hero Fibres Ltd.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Valuation of Equity Shares of M/s Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd.
Facts and Controversy:
The assessee valued shares at Rs. 30.45 per share, while the Assessing Officer valued them at Rs. 326.19 per share. The difference arose due to the method of valuation and the balance-sheet date used.
Assessing Officer's Approach:
- Adopted the balance-sheet as on 30-6-1982.
- Divided the capital by 149331 shares (existing shares as on 30-6-1982).
Assessee's Approach:
- Adopted the balance-sheet as on 30-6-1982.
- Divided the capital by 248885 shares (including 99554 bonus shares issued between 1-7-1982 and 31-3-1983).
CWT (Appeals)'s Approach:
- Adopted the balance-sheet as on 30-6-1983.
- Divided the capital by 248885 shares.
Tribunal's Decision:
- The balance-sheet as on 30-6-1982 should be used, as it immediately precedes the valuation date (31-3-1983).
- The net wealth should be divided by the total number of shares (248885), including bonus shares.
- The value of shares should not exclude advance-tax payment from the assets of the company.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the value of shares by dividing the net wealth as on 30-6-1982 by 248885 shares, rejecting the CWT (Appeals)'s approach of using the balance-sheet as on 30-6-1983.
2. Valuation of Equity Shares of M/s Highway Cycle Industries Ltd.
Facts and Controversy:
The assessee valued shares at Rs. 1,012 each, while the Assessing Officer valued them at Rs. 4,071.23 per share. Similar to M/s Hero Cycles, the valuation date was 31-3-1983, and bonus shares were issued between 1-7-1982 and 31-3-1983.
Tribunal's Decision:
- The balance-sheet as on 30-6-1982 should be used.
- The net wealth should be divided by the total number of shares, including bonus shares.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to work out the value of each share by adopting the balance-sheet as on 30-6-1982 and using the total number of shares, including bonus shares.
3. Exemption under Section 5(1)(xxa) of the Wealth-tax Act for Equity Shares of M/s Hero Fibres Ltd.
Facts and Controversy:
The assessee claimed exemption under section 5(1)(xxa) for shares in M/s Hero Fibres Ltd., which the Assessing Officer denied, arguing the company primarily produced synthetic yarn rather than cotton yarn.
CWT (Appeals)'s Decision:
- Agreed that the company was engaged in manufacturing cotton yarn.
- Denied exemption due to higher production of synthetic yarn during the relevant period.
Tribunal's Decision:
- Emphasized the main object of the company, which included the production of cotton yarn.
- Held that exemption should be based on the company's objects rather than the actual production in a specific year.
- Noted that the prospectus and Garg's Ready Reckoner indicated eligibility for exemption under section 5(1)(xxa).
Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(xxa) for the shares in M/s Hero Fibres Ltd., irrespective of the higher production of synthetic yarn in the relevant year.
Final Outcome:
- Assessee's Appeal: Allowed.
- Revenue's Appeal: Dismissed.
-
1994 (11) TMI 162
Issues:
Exclusion of share income from taxable income due to gift by assessee to another entity.
Analysis:
1. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 1982-83 and focuses on the exclusion of share income from the assessee's taxable income. The assessee had gifted a portion of her share in M/s Munjal Sales Corporation to M/s Thakur Devi Investments Pvt. Ltd. The gift was accepted by the donee, and other partners of the corporation also consented to the transfer.
2. The Gift-tax Officer computed the taxable gift at a higher amount than declared by the assessee, leading to a dispute. The Assessing Officer initially assessed the entire share income from M/s Munjal Sales Corporation in the assessee's hands, but the CIT(A) later accepted the contention that the share income gifted to M/s Thakur Devi Investments Pvt. Ltd. should not be included in the assessee's taxable income.
3. The Departmental Representative relied on a previous Tribunal decision against the assessee in a similar case, arguing that there was a diversion by an overriding title. However, the assessee's counsel contended that the previous decision was based on a concession made by the counsel and should not prejudice the current appeal.
4. The assessee's counsel cited relevant case laws to support the claim that the share income had been validly gifted and diverted by overriding title to the donee entity. The Tribunal analyzed the gift deed, partner confirmations, and other details to conclude that the gift was valid, and the share income should be excluded from the assessee's taxable income.
5. The Tribunal held that the provisions of section 60 of the Income-tax Act were not applicable in this case, as the gift was valid and accepted by the department. The overriding title created in favor of the donee entity divested the assessee of the gifted share income. Section 29 of the Indian Partnership Act was deemed not to interfere with the assessee's claim.
6. The Tribunal distinguished the facts of the present case from previous decisions cited by the Departmental Representative, emphasizing that the gift was valid and the share income had been effectively diverted to the donee entity. Considering all facts and circumstances, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude the share income from the assessee's taxable income.
7. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the exclusion of the share income derived from the gift made by the assessee to M/s Thakur Devi Investments Pvt. Ltd.
-
1994 (11) TMI 161
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the Assessing Officer's action under section 143(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. The legitimacy of withdrawing deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I.
3. The applicability of section 143(1)(b) versus section 143(2) for making adjustments.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Justification of the Assessing Officer's action under section 143(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The primary issue was whether the Assessing Officer (AO) was justified in passing an order under section 143(1)(b) for the assessment year 1991-92. The assessee, a limited company, filed its return declaring total income at Rs. 8,59,54,567, which was processed under section 143(1)(a), making minor adjustments. A revised return was filed, and similar minor adjustments were made. Subsequently, the AO passed an order under section 143(3) for the previous assessment year (1990-91) and used this to process the 1991-92 return under section 143(1)(b), adding Rs. 1,64,62,908 by withdrawing deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I.
The assessee challenged this addition under section 154, but the AO and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the addition. The tribunal examined the scheme of section 143(1), noting that section 143(1)(a) allowed for prima facie adjustments, while section 143(1)(b) could be invoked if there was a variation in loss carried forward, deduction, allowance, or relief due to an order for an earlier assessment year passed after the filing of the return for the subsequent year. The tribunal found that the total income for 1990-91 was positive, indicating no variation in the brought-forward loss, deduction, or allowance. Thus, the basic condition for invoking section 143(1)(b) was not met, making the AO's action unjustified.
2. The legitimacy of withdrawing deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I:
The assessee argued that the AO wrongly assumed jurisdiction under section 143(1)(b) and illegally withdrew deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I for the Poanta Sahib unit. It was contended that the scope of section 143(1)(b) was limited and could not be applied merely because of a different view taken in the earlier assessment year. The tribunal agreed, noting that the correct course for making such additions would be to pass an order under section 143(3) after issuing a notice under section 143(2).
On merits, the assessee cited the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Patiala Flour Mills Co. (P.) Ltd., arguing that deductions under section 80HH could not be withdrawn simply because there was no positive income in the unit. The tribunal did not delve deeply into the merits but indicated that much could be said in favor of the assessee regarding the claim under section 80HH.
3. The applicability of section 143(1)(b) versus section 143(2) for making adjustments:
The tribunal emphasized that section 143(1)(b) could only be applied if there was a variation in the brought-forward loss, deduction, allowance, or relief due to an order for an earlier assessment year passed after the filing of the return for the subsequent year. In this case, there was no such variation, so the AO should have issued a notice under section 143(2) to verify the correctness or completeness of the return and then made the necessary adjustments under section 143(3) or section 144. The tribunal illustrated this with an example, explaining that if there was no variation in the brought-forward loss or other claims, adjustments could not be made under section 143(1)(b).
Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that there was no variation in the brought-forward loss, deduction, allowance, or relief necessitating action under section 143(1)(b) for the assessment year 1991-92. Therefore, the AO was not justified in invoking section 143(1)(b) to make an addition of Rs. 1,64,62,908. The assessee's income under section 143(1)(a) was determined to be Rs. 8,44,59,216, and the appeal was allowed.
-
1994 (11) TMI 160
Issues:
1. Whether the CIT (A) erred in directing the ITO to allow registration to the assessee-firm under section 184(7) of the I.T. Act.
Detailed Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT CALCUTTA-E centered around the issue of registration of an assessee-firm under section 184(7) of the Income Tax Act. The ITO had initially cancelled the registration of the firm for the assessment year 1987-88 on the grounds that the entire profits had not been divided among the partners, which is a prerequisite for registration. However, the CIT (A) overturned this decision, stating that the ITO's order was vague and lacked findings regarding the genuineness of the firm or any material supporting the cancellation of registration. The CIT (A) emphasized that registration could only be cancelled if there was evidence of a lack of genuine partnership or a default under section 144 of the Act, which was not the case here. The CIT (A) directed the ITO to allow registration to the firm, leading to an appeal by the revenue.
The Appellate Tribunal, after hearing arguments from both sides, upheld the CIT (A)'s decision. The Tribunal found various deficiencies in the ITO's order under section 186 of the Act, which was used to cancel the registration. Firstly, the order was deemed vague and did not specify the objections raised by the assessee. Secondly, it was noted that the ITO failed to establish that the firm was non-genuine, a prerequisite for cancellation under section 186. Thirdly, it was highlighted that the cancellation of registration required the previous approval of the IAC/DC, which was not evident in the ITO's order. Fourthly, the Tribunal pointed out that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard against the cancellation of registration, as the ITO's communication did not clearly propose the cancellation. Additionally, it was emphasized that the profits had been divided among the partners in accordance with the profit-sharing ratio, even though certain capital profits were not distributed, which did not violate the conditions for registration.
The Tribunal relied on established legal principles to affirm the registration of the firm. It was noted that for registration, a firm must be genuine and comply with all registration formalities. In this case, the genuineness of the firm was not in question, and all necessary formalities had been met. Therefore, the Tribunal concurred with the CIT (A)'s decision, dismissing the revenue's appeal and upholding the registration of the assessee-firm under section 184(7) of the Income Tax Act.
-
1994 (11) TMI 159
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice issued under section 148.
2. Classification of the return filed on 30-3-1989 as a return under section 148 or section 139(4).
3. Whether the reassessment completed on 22-8-1990 is barred by limitation.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Notice Issued Under Section 148:
The Tribunal examined whether the notice issued under section 148 on 25-10-1988 was valid. According to section 148(1), a notice must be issued before making assessments, reassessments, and recomputations of income. In this case, the notice was issued on 25-10-1988, and the assessment was completed on 22-8-1990, thus satisfying the condition of being issued before the assessment was made. Additionally, section 149(1) stipulates that no notice under section 148 shall be issued if eight years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. For the assessment year 1987-88, eight years would elapse in 1996, making the notice issued on 25-10-1988 well within the prescribed time limit. The Tribunal concluded that the notice under section 148 was valid in all respects, as no return was filed before its issuance, and there was no provision in the Act to invalidate such a notice by furnishing a return afterward.
2. Classification of the Return Filed on 30-3-1989:
The Tribunal then addressed whether the return filed on 30-3-1989 should be treated as a return under section 148 or section 139(4). The return was filed in response to the notice under section 148, which is treated as a notice under section 139(2). The Tribunal noted that section 139(4) allows a person who has not furnished a return within the time allowed under section 139(1) or (2) to file a return before the assessment is made. However, since the return in this case was filed in response to a notice under section 148, it could not be treated as a return under section 139(4). The Tribunal held that the return filed on 30-3-1989 was a return furnished under section 139(2)/148, supported by the Calcutta High Court decisions in Iqbal Singh Atwal v. CIT and Balish Singh & Co. v. CIT.
3. Whether the Reassessment Completed on 22-8-1990 is Barred by Limitation:
The Tribunal considered the contention that the assessment was barred by limitation because the return filed on 30-3-1989 should have been completed by 31-3-1990. However, since the return was treated as a return under section 148/139(2), the limitation for making the assessment is governed by section 153(2). According to section 153(2)(a), no assessment, reassessment, or recomputation shall be made after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year in which the notice under section 148 was served. In this case, the notice was served on 26-10-1988, making the limitation period expire on 31-3-1993. The assessment completed on 22-8-1990 was therefore within the prescribed time limits. The Tribunal concluded that the assessment was not barred by limitation and was a valid assessment.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), concluding that:
1. The notice issued under section 148 was valid.
2. The return filed on 30-3-1989 was to be treated as a return under section 139(2)/148.
3. The reassessment completed on 22-8-1990 was within the limitations and thus valid.
-
1994 (11) TMI 158
Issues Involved:
1. Ownership of the amount of Rs. 1,60,000 received by the assessee from his wife.
2. Validity of the deletion of the addition of Rs. 1,60,000 made as assessee's income from undisclosed sources.
3. Establishment of the identity, creditworthiness of the creditor, and genuineness of the loan transaction.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Ownership of the amount of Rs. 1,60,000 received by the assessee from his wife:
The primary issue was whether the assessee could be considered the owner of Rs. 1,60,000 received from his wife. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) treated the loan transaction as bogus due to non-compliance by EPC, the entity from which the wife allegedly received the loan. The CIT(A) held that the assessee had established the identity of the creditor (his wife) and her creditworthiness, and thus, the amount could not be treated as the assessee's income. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the creditworthiness of his wife and the genuineness of the transaction, thereby reversing the CIT(A)'s decision.
2. Validity of the deletion of the addition of Rs. 1,60,000 made as assessee's income from undisclosed sources:
The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 1,60,000 made by the A.O., relying on the confirmation of the loan transaction and the creditworthiness of the wife as an existing income-tax and wealth-tax assessee. The Tribunal, however, noted that the assessee did not furnish essential documents such as confirmation from EPC, copy of the creditor's account with EPC, and the mode of payment, among others. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) was wrong in holding that the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction were proved, and thus, the deletion of the addition was not justified.
3. Establishment of the identity, creditworthiness of the creditor, and genuineness of the loan transaction:
The Tribunal examined whether the assessee had established the identity of the creditor, the creditworthiness of the creditor, and the genuineness of the loan transaction. The Tribunal found that the assessee had only established the identity of the creditor but failed to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction due to the absence of corroborative evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that mere confirmation is not enough to prove the genuineness of the transaction and that the primary onus was not fully discharged by the assessee.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the source of the credit/loan received from his wife and failed to explain the same satisfactorily. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the A.O. rightly treated the sum of Rs. 1,60,000 as unexplained cash credit and correctly assessed it as income from undisclosed sources. The order of the CIT(A) was reversed, and the order of the A.O. was restored, allowing the appeal in favor of the department.
-
1994 (11) TMI 157
Issues:
Challenge to cancellation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for assessment years 1976-77 to 1984-85.
Analysis:
The case involved the department's appeal against the cancellation of penalties totaling Rs. 35,000 imposed on the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The search conducted by the Income-tax Department in 1984 revealed concealed income through pawned articles worth Rs. 2,32,175. The assessee claimed the articles belonged to another entity and offered the income as its own over the assessment years. The Assessing Officer accepted the income declared by the assessee but imposed penalties for concealment. The first appellate authority ruled in favor of the assessee, stating no penalty was justified due to no discrepancy between the income declared and assessed. However, the department argued that concealment was admitted by the assessee and penalties were warranted. The Tribunal agreed with the department, emphasizing that the disclosed income was indeed concealed income. The Tribunal also discussed the relevance of a beneficial provision in the law and extended its application to the penalty clause, ultimately upholding the penalties.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's conduct demonstrated concealment of income, despite no variance between declared and assessed income. The Tribunal highlighted that a voluntary disclosure does not absolve an assessee of concealing income. The Tribunal referenced legal precedents to support its decision, emphasizing that the law applicable at the time of concealment governs the penalty imposition. The Tribunal rejected the first appellate authority's reasoning and reinstated the penalties based on the concealment of income by the assessee.
Regarding a legal provision omitted in 1985, the Tribunal discussed its applicability to the penalty clause. The Tribunal reasoned that the beneficial provision, though specific to a different section, could be extended to the penalty clause based on interpretative principles. The Tribunal emphasized that the provision aimed at treating post-seizure disclosures as voluntary and in good faith, potentially impacting penalty imposition. Despite disagreeing with the first appellate authority's rationale, the Tribunal upheld the penalty deletion based on a different legal aspect, extending the benefit of the provision to the penalty clause.
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed all appeals, reinstating the penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer for concealing income, emphasizing the legal implications of voluntary disclosures and the interpretation of beneficial provisions in tax laws.
-
1994 (11) TMI 156
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) was justified in taxing the income arising to the trustees of "Bharat Trust" at the maximum marginal rate under Section 164(1) of the IT Act, 1961.
2. Disallowance of advertisement expenses of Rs. 90,423 under Rule 6B(2) of the IT Rules.
3. Disallowance of Rs. 18,881 towards bonus payment to the employees.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Taxation of Income at Maximum Marginal Rate:
The central issue in the appeal was whether the AO was justified in taxing the income arising to the trustees of "Bharat Trust" at the maximum marginal rate under Section 164(1) of the IT Act, 1961 read with Explanation I. The trust deed executed on 31st December 1979, specified two sets of beneficiaries in Schedules I and II. The AO concluded that the income should be taxed at the maximum marginal rate, citing that a trust is not a person under Section 9 of the Indian Trusts Act and cannot hold or transfer property under Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act. The AO also noted that the trustees had absolute discretion over the income distribution, and the beneficiaries of Schedule II had no vested or contingent rights in the income for 19 years.
The appellate authority, however, found that the trust was specific and non-discretionary with known and determinate beneficiaries and shares. The appellate authority reversed the AO's decision, holding that Section 164(1) was not applicable and that the income should be assessed under Section 161(1) of the IT Act. The Tribunal supported this view, emphasizing that the beneficiaries and their shares were specific and determinate, and the income had already been taxed in the hands of the beneficiaries, preventing double taxation. The Tribunal referred to several case laws, including the Supreme Court's decision in CWT vs. Trustees of H.E.H. Nizam's Family (Remainderman's Wealth Trust), which mandated that assessments on trustees should be made in accordance with the special provisions for trusts.
2. Disallowance of Advertisement Expenses:
The AO disallowed advertisement expenses amounting to Rs. 90,423 under Rule 6B(2) of the IT Rules. The appellate authority allowed the deduction, providing valid and cogent reasons. The Tribunal upheld this decision, agreeing with the reasoning provided by the appellate authority.
3. Disallowance of Bonus Payment:
The AO disallowed Rs. 18,881 towards bonus payments to employees. The appellate authority allowed this deduction, and the Tribunal upheld the decision, finding the reasons provided by the appellate authority to be valid and cogent.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the appellate authority's decision that the income of "Bharat Trust" should be assessed under Section 161(1) and not at the maximum marginal rate under Section 164(1). The Tribunal also upheld the deductions for advertisement and bonus expenses as allowed by the appellate authority.
-
1994 (11) TMI 155
Issues involved:
The issue involves the interpretation of u/s 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding the applicability of tax concessions to an assessee firm engaged in manufacturing activities in a free trade zone. The main contention is whether the assessee's declaration, filed after the return of income, should be considered valid for claiming the tax benefits under u/s 10A.
Summary of Judgment:
1. The assessee firm, engaged in manufacturing activities, filed a return of income showing a loss for the assessment year 1984-85. The firm later submitted a declaration, after more than 2 years, stating that u/s 10A of the Act should not be applied for the initial assessment year and the subsequent four years. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) applied u/s 10A to the assessment year 1984-85, leading to an appeal by the assessee.
2. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, stating that the ITO was not justified in applying u/s 10A to the assessee for the year 1984-85. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the assessee failed to utilize the option u/s 10A(7) by not filing the declaration along with the return of income.
3. The counsel for the assessee contended that the procedural requirement of filing the declaration should not deprive the assessee of the tax benefits under u/s 10A. Referring to relevant case laws, it was argued that the declaration filed during the assessment proceedings should be considered valid.
4. The Tribunal observed that u/s 10A was introduced to encourage export-oriented industries in free trade zones, providing tax exemptions for initial assessment years. The option to make a declaration before the expiry of time allowed under the Act was considered procedural, not mandatory. Referring to precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee's declaration during the assessment process should be accepted as utilizing the option u/s 10A(7).
5. It was further noted that since the assessee did not claim any benefit under u/s 10A for the year under consideration, the question of entitlement to benefits in subsequent years would be determined when claimed. The Tribunal held that the ITO was not justified in applying u/s 10A to the assessment year 1984-85 without the assessee's initial claim or utilization of the option.
6. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, affirming the decision of the CIT(A) that u/s 10A should not apply to the assessee for the assessment year 1984-85.
............
|
9911796707
