Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin
Reported in : (1985)14ITD290(Coch.)
1. These appeals by the assessee relates to the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78, for which the relevant valuation dates were 31-3-1976 and 31-3-1977, respectively. The total wealth of the assessee included three flats in the 'Saguna Buildings' at St. Francis Road, Villa Parle, Bombay-56. These flats were acquired at a cost of Rs. 90,985 in the previous year which ended on 31-3-1976. In her returns for the two assessment years under appeal, the assessee valued the flats at Rs. 90,985. The assessee also claimed exemption for all the three flats under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'). The WTO accepted the valuation made by the assessee and also granted exemption for the entire value under Section 5(1)(iv). This was considered by the Commissioner to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. He, therefore, took up the matter in revision under Section 25(2) of the Act for both the assessment years.2. The Commissioner held that the exemption u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin
Reported in : (1985)14ITD206(Coch.)
1. The appeals by the department and the cross-objections by the assessee relate to the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81.2. The assessee is an employee of Tata Finlay Ltd., Munnar, hereinafter referred to as 'the company'. The leave rules of the company provided for granting 30 days' leave to a member of the staff each year. The leave rules also provided for paying to the assessee travelling and incidental assistance up to a maximum of Rs. 2,400 each for adult and Rs. 2,400 per child over 12 years of age up to a maximum of 21 years and/or Rs. 1,200 per child below 12 years. For each of the accounting years relevant to the assessment years under appeal, the assessee was paid Rs. 9,600 as leave travel assistance. In the original assessments for these two assessment years, which were completed on 25-7-1980 and 17-10-1980, the leave travel assistance was treated as exempt under Section 10(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The assessments were completed under Section 143(1) o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin
Reported in : (1985)14ITD200(Coch.)
1. This appeal by the assessee relates to the assessment year 1979-80, for which the previous year ended on 31-3-1979.2. The assessee, who is a native of Indore, owned a building in Indore jointly with his mother and sister. The ground floor of the building was let out up to 31-3-1978. It was vacant throughout the accounting period relevant to the assessment year under appeal. The first floor was occupied by the mother of the assessee. As the assessee was employed in Kerala and was also residing in Kerala, he had not occupied the first floor along with his mother during the relevant accounting period. The assessee could, therefore, have claimed total exemption under Section 23(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') with regard to the assessee's share of the annual value of the first floor. But the assessee returned Rs. 583 as the assessee's share in the- notional income of the first floor. He did not return any notional income from the ground floor as the same had not been let out...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin
Reported in : (1985)14ITD1a(Coch.)
1. This appeal by the department relates to the assessment year 1976-77, for which the previous year ended on 31-12-197$. The assessee is a banking company. The assessee claimed that in working out the chargeable profits of the assessee under the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ('the Act') a sum of Rs. 4,56,000, which the assessee had transferred to the reserve fund, should be excluded from the total income of the assessee as computed under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the 1961 Act'). The assessee had claimed that the transfer of the amount was under Section 17(1) of the Banking Companies Act, 1949. The claim was rejected by the ITO on the ground that the transfer of the amount by the assessee was not from the total income of the assessee for the previous year. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the amount transferred should be excluded from the total income even if the transferred amount did not come from out of the income of the previous year. Aggrieved by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin
Reported in : (1985)13ITD639(Coch.)
1. These appeals by the department relate to the assessment year 1979-80, for which the accounting period ended on 31-3-1979.2. The firm Sellwell Tea Agencies, Cochin 2, originally consisted of two partners, viz., D.S. Ratnakar and his son, R. Anil, who are the two assessees in the present appeals. They had a 60 per cent and 40 per cent share, respectively. On 30-9-1978, the firm was reconstituted. R.Ashok another son of Ratnakar and the younger brother of Anil was admitted to the partnership. In the reconstituted firm Ratnakar's share went down from 60 per cent to 40 per cent and that of Anil from 40 per cent to 30 per cent. Ashok had a 30 per cent share. The GTO held that there has been a gift to the extent of 20 per cent of his share by Ratnakar and to the extent of 10 per cent of his share by Anil. The GTO took the average profit for 5 years (Rs. 93,262) and reduced therefrom interest on capital at 12 per cent (Rs. 19,427) and 15 per cent of the profits as managerial remuneration ...
Tag this Judgment!