Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1988)24ITD459(Hyd.)
1. This is an appeal by the department. The issue is whether an addition of Rs. 1,00,000 made by the Income-tax Officer as unexplained cash credits is justified.2. The assessee an individual has a business in manufacture of agarbathi. The Income-tax Officer found cash credits in the name of Ibrahim Haji Shakoor of Akola on two dates. Rs. 75,000 was credited on 16-4-1981 and further Rs. 25,000 was credited on 10-5-1981. The Income-tax Officer found that both these cheques which bear consecutive numbers were issued on Union Bank of India, Siddiam-bar Bazar Branch, Hyderabad where the creditor had a bank account. The peculiarity of these cheques were that on the dates on which the cheques were issued in favour of the assessee, there was no sufficient funds. The first cheque issued on 16-4-1981 for Rs. 75,000 was at a time when the cash balance was only Rs. 200. Just before the date of presentation of the cheque of Rs. 75,000, an equal amount was found deposited in that account. This enab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1988)26ITD312(Hyd.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee. One point of dispute is whether the revised return of income filed by the appellant was a return filed under the Amnesty Scheme or not. The other points of dispute are with regard to levy of interest under Section 139(8) and Section 215.2. The assessee is a registered firm. It did not file the return of income as required under Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act and there was no response to notice issued under Section 139(2). However, on 27-8-1985, a return of income was filed admitting an income of Rs. 1,66,413. The case was taken up for disposal by the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Circle II, Hyderabad, and the assessment proceedings were in procesection On 31-3-1986, the assessee filed another return of income titled as "revised return" declaring an income of Rs. 2,86,413 in which it disclosed a sum of Rs. 1,20,000 from other sources in addition to the business income that had been disclosed in the original return filed on 27-8-1985. The Income...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1988)24ITR329(Hyd.)
1. These departmental appeals relate to assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 and they are being disposed of together as a common issue is involved.2. The assessee is a HUF consisting of Kishandas, karta, his wife Smt.Iswara Devi, two major sons Shri Damodar Das Agarwal and Prabhudas Agarwal. Shri Damodar Das Agarwal died on 8-11-1980 leaving behind his wife Smt. Urmila Agarwal and two minor sons. The assessee filed the return claiming deduction of l/4th share in the value of the properties due to the deceased's widow and her children. The Wealth-tax Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee. On appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the assessee's claim and directed the Wealth-tax Officer to exclude the share of the deceased from the total wealth of the assessee for these two years. He followed the decisions of the Mysore High Court in CIT v. Smt. Nagarathnamma [1970] 76 ITR 352 and of the Gujarat High Court in CWT v. Kantilal Manilal [1973] 90 ITR 289.Against the sam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1988)24ITD417(Hyd.)
1. The assessee filed the return of income on 9-11-1979 but the self-assessment tax amounting to Rs. 9,172 payable under Section 140A was not paid at the time of filing the return. The assessment was completed on 4-3-1982 and tax demand of Rs. 9,536 was raised which was paid on 5-8-1982. Since the self-assessment tax was not paid the Income-tax Officer invoked the provisions of Section 140A(3) of the Act. He levied a penalty of Rs. 4,914. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The assessee urged before him that he did not have sufficient cash balance for payment of self-assessment tax. Hence there was sufficient reason for not paying the same. Penalty under Section 140A(3) should not have been levied. It was also pointed out to him that explanation was filed before the Income-tax Officer but the same was not considered. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the assessee filed explanation on 19-3-1984 which was not considered by the Income-tax Officer w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1988)26ITD500(Hyd.)
1. This is an appeal by the accountable person against the order of the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty, Madras, dated 6-3-1986 rejecting the claim of the accountable person towards the provision of Rs. 50,000 for the marriage expenses of the unmarried, daughter of the deceased.--------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | |B.V. Lakshmi- B.V. Nanda- B.V. Satya- B.V. Rajeswari B.V. Sri-naraynnan gopal narayanan lakshmi In the above major HUE there'was a partial partition on 12-6-1985. In the said, partition a claim was put forward for Rs. 1 lakh towards the provision for marriage expenses of unmarried daughters vis., Kum. B.V.Rajeswari and Rum. B.V. Srilakshmi.3, The Assistant Controller as well as the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty rejected the claim thus put forward and the said point became final as the said point was not carried in further appeal. The family of Sri B.V. Nandagopal, the deceased in this appeal has his wife in Smt.. B.N. Geetha. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1988)26ITD244(Hyd.)
1. The assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 5,000 under Section 80CC representing investment in shares in V.B.O. Ferro Alloys. The assessee invested Rs. 11,000 in the shares which were purchased out of promoters quota and not from the issue offered to the public. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim on the ground that the company has not come out with any public issue during the year of account. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the shares were from the promoters quota and not from the issue offered to the public and so the assessee is not entitled to deduction under Section 80CC. Against the same the assessee has preferred this appeal.2. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Controller of Capital Issues has granted necessary permission for the public issue of the shares. The shares purchased from the promoters' quota would be eligible for deduction under Section 80CC. The learned departmental representative justified the disallowance.3. W...
Tag this Judgment!