Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1987)23ITD464(Delhi)
1. These appeals by the asscssce-company arc directed against the orders of the CIT (Appeals) upholding imposition of penalties under Section 271(I)(c) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1956-57 to 1963-64. The basic facts relating to all these appeals are common and common arguments have been advanced before us in respect of all of them. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of these appeals by this common order.2. The assessee firm came into existence in 1955 with four partners, namely, Shri K.C. Agarwal, Shri J.P. Agarwal, Shri H.K. Agarwal and Shri B.K. Agarwal. On 13-1-1958 one more partner Shri D.N. Agarwal joined this firm but he retired on 28-8-1961. On 19-8-1969 two of the partners Shri H.K. Agarwal and Shri B.K. Agarwal retired and two partners constituted the firm which continued the business up to 21-5-1971 when Shri J.P. Agarwal died. On his death the firm was dissolved. Thus these are penalty orders passed on a dissolved firm. In fact the assessments on the basis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1987)23ITD540(Delhi)
1. These are cross-appeals, one by the assessee and one by the Department against the order of the Commissioner of Gift-tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 1979-80. Though the Gift-tax assessment was made in the hands of Dr. Surender Singh Majithia, he later on expired and his legal heirs have been brought on record. In fact the appeal has been filed before us by the legal heir and executors of the estate.2. The main issue in the present appeals relates to the valuation of certain shares of M/s. Saraya Sugar Mills, which had been gifted by the assessee on 21-5-1978. The assessee had disclosed the value of 70,000 shares at Rs. 2,62,500 but at the time of assessment it had been contended by the representative of the assessee that while valuing these shares the liability in respect of the provision for gratuity should be deducted. It was also contended that as the shares are not readily saleable in the market as a deduction of 30 % should be allowed. The Gift-tax Officer, however, dete...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1987)23ITD1(Delhi)
1. The appellant Revenue by their present appeal contest the correctness of the finding of the learned CIT (Appeals), New Delhi, dated 31-10-1983, for the asst. year 1980-81, on the following ground : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in directing the Income-tax Officer to carry forward the loss of Rs. 22,540 to be set off against the income of next asst. year even though the said loss was determined in pursuance of a return filed well beyond the time limit prescribed in Section 139(3) read with Section 139(1), especially in view of the observations of S.C. in Brij Mohan v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 1 that a belated return filed under Section 139(4) cannot be equated with a return under Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. By status, the assesses is a private limited company and its method of accounting is mercantile. The accounting period was the year ending 31-8-1979. The return of income was filed on 5-6-1981...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1987)23ITD440(Delhi)
1. The appeal of the revenue for the assessment year 1976-77 and the CO. of the assessee relating thereto are conveniently taken up together and disposed of by a common order.2. First we will take up the appeal of the revenue and state the relevant facts. The assessee is a limited company whose accounting year, relevant to the assessment year 1976-77 under consideration ended on 30th June, 1975. The ITO in the assessment order has not correctly indicated the nature of assessee's business. The assessee's learned counsel Shri O.P. Vaish pointed out that the assessee is packaging machinery manufacturer and not making cartons. It entered into an agreement dated 28th March, 1973 with Christonssons Muskinor and Patontor AD, Bromma, Sweden (hereinafter referred to as 'CMP') which was engaged in Sweden in the manufacture of packaging machinery for in its own specialization system of packaging used for packing of a variety of consumer products. Relevant clauses of the agreement are reproduced ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1988)25ITD96(Delhi)
1 In this appeal by the assessee, the only issue involved is regarding the claim of interest under Section 244(1A) in respect of self-assessment tax paid which was refunded. According to the assessee, it is not disputed by the department that the payment was made after 1-4-1975 but what is being disputed is that self-assessment tax is not an amount paid as a consequence of assessment order and, therefore, interest is not allowable. Reference was made to the provisions contained in Section 140A(2) where it has been mentioned that after a regular assessment has been made the amount that is paid as self-assessment tax shall be deemed to have been paid towards such regular assessment. Therefore, though the amount was paid prior to the assessment, in view of this provision, the claim of the assessee is fully justified that it should be treated as payment made as a consequence of the regular assessment. Reliance was also placed in Delhi High Court decision in National Agricultural. Co-opera...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1988)24ITD478(Delhi)
1. This appeal is filed by the Income-tax Officer against the order of the Commissioner (A) and the cross-objection is by the assessee. The Income-tax Officer feels aggrieved by the direction of the Commissioner (A) to allow deduction of the sum of Rs. 3,25,988 representing the initial contribution to be made to the gratuity fund.2. The assessee-company debited its profit and loss account by a sum of Rs. 3,72,424 towards gratuity liability. Of this, sum of Rs. 3,25,988 represented provision for payment of initial contribution of gratuity as per actuarial valuation and the balance represented the amount paid during the year. While the Income-tax Officer allowed the deduction for the payment made during the year, he declined to allow the provision made for gratuity of Rs. 3,25,988 on the ground that it was only a provision made for the payment of gratuity and there was a prohibition imposed by Section 40A(7) with -effect from 1-4-1973 to allow deductions for provisions made towards grat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1988)24ITD1a(Delhi)
1. These are cross-appeals, one by the assessee and the other by the Department against the order of the C.I.T. (Appeals) for the assessment year 1980-81. As some of the grounds are overlapping and arguments have been advanced in both the appeals by the two parties, we proceed to dispose of these appeals by this common order. We take up the appeal by the assessee first.2. The assessee has raised as many as 11 grounds in its appeal. Besides this at the time of hearing the assessee has placed before us an additional ground of appeal, which reads as follows : That following the order of IT AT for assessment year 1979-80 dated 27-3-1987 (para 46) on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law a sum of Rs. 7,34,433 representing excise duty liability deleted by the Collector, Central Excise, in the year of appeal and offered by the appellant for tax should be excluded from the total income of the appellant.3. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ratlam had passed an order on 14...
Tag this Judgment!