Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1988)24ITD383(Mad.)
1. These appeals by the assessee are consolidated and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience as they involve a common issue. These appeals pertain to the assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76, 1977-78 to 1980-81 and arise out of the consolidated order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Coimbatore dated 18-11-1985. In this order the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rectificatory orders passed by the Income-tax Officer for these years under Section 155 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 withdrawing development rebate/investment allowance already granted for the reason that the assets of the Chettinad Branch of the assessee, on which development rebate and investment allowance was granted, were transferred to M/s. Sri Nachammai Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of the assessee-company. The common issue, therefore, is whether the Income-tax Officer is justified in withdrawing the development rebate/investment allowance when the assessee holding company transferre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1988)25ITD30(Mad.)
1. This appeal by the assessee relates to the assessment year 1981-82.The assessment made is in the status of 'individual'. The only point at issue is the valuation of the assessee's interest in a property at 69, Alagappa Road, Madras. The valuation date is 31-3-1981. The WTO found that this property was sold in November 1981 for Rs. 12 lakhs and the assessee had paid Rs. 50,000 to his mother in consideration of her surrendering and transferring of her life interest in the property. The WTO enquired of the assessee why a value of Rs. 11,50,000 should not be adopted in place of Rs. 1,65,000 returned by the assessee. The submission of the assessee was that there was no intention as on 31-3-1981, i.e., the valuation date, to sell the property in question and the question of adopting the value of sale which took place later did not arise. Alternatively, the submission was that since the assessee was living along with his mother in the said residence, the value of the property should be fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1988)25ITD25(Mad.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee which relates to the assessment year 1981-82 and arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)- III, Madras dated 12-3-1985, wherein the loss of Rs. 1,38,705 claimed, by the assessee as arising out of liability for raw materials taken on loan which was disallowed, by the Income-tax Officer was confirmed.Raising several grounds it was urged that the Commis- sioner (Appeals) erred in her decision and the provision for liability accrued in the relevant previous year and therefore it ought to have been considered by the Commissioner (Appeals) and such provision was necessary in view of the' statutory audit of the company and therefore the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) should be set aside and the claim made by the assessee should be allowed.2. The assessee is a private limited company and follows financial year as the previous year. It manufactures aluminium conductors which are sold to Electricity Board against orders. The Government allo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1988)24ITD423(Mad.)
1. This appeal is by the assessee and relates to the assessment year 1981-82. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamilnadu-III, Madras, passed under the provisions of Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961. The assessee had shown under the head 'Business' an amount of Rs. 2,78,958 as income according to the audited profit and loss account. The ITO excluded from the same dividends. He allowed deductions as claimed by the assessee under the head 'Business'. The amount of dividend of Rs. 2,29,216, which was excluded from the head 'Business', was assessed under the head 'Other sources'.After deducting an amount of Rs. 4,304 Under Section 80K, Section 80M deduction of 60 per cent was given on the balance of Rs. 2,24,912, 2. The CIT, on a perusal of the assessment order, was of the view that the ITO had committed a mistake prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue in view of the provision of Section 80AA introduced by the Finance Act of 1980. He held that deductio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1988)26ITD250(Mad.)
1. These appeals, all filed by the revenue and arising out of wealth-tax proceedings, relate to the assessment years 1970-71 to 1974-75 inclusive. The relevant valuation dates in each case is the last day of the financial year preceding the relevant assessment year.2. The assessee is the widow of Shri N. Perianna Pillai who died on 3-4-1958. He left a will dated 16th February, 1958. As considerable arguments were advanced by the revenue with reference to the terms of the will, we would set out a free English translation thereof as under : Will of N. Perianna Pillai, son of Nainamalai Pillai, Solia Velalar, Pro. Ramajayam Transports and Agriculturists, Paramathi Road, Namakkal, Namakkal Tq. whole heartedly made on the 16th day of February, 1958 when in full possession of his senses and memory. As my health is not all right now and as I intend going to Madras for medical treatment ; I desire to make an arrangement for my properties and hence I am writing this will. All my immovable and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1988)24ITD380(Mad.)
1. This appeal by the Revenue relates to the assessment year 1982-83.The facts fall in a very narrow compass. The assessee is a HUF. The assessments made were in the status of "Resident" in each of the assessment years 1975-76 to 1981-82. The assessee was carrying on business in dealing in shares and money lending in India and Malaysia.There was a carried forward loss from business outside India aggregating to Rs. 2,33,181 in the assessment years 1975-76 to 1981-82 and loss from business in India aggregating to Rs. 74,858 making a total of Rs. 3,08,181. In the assessment year 1982-83 now under consideration, there was a positive income from business in India of about Rs. 2 lakhs. While the ITO agreed to set off the brought forward loss from Indian business of Rs. 74,858, he refused to set off the foreign brought forward loss of Rs. 2,33,181. It is not in dispute that the Malaysian business was continued to be carried on in the previous year relevant to this assessment year. However, i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
1. These appeals filed by the assessee relate to the assessment years 1978-79 to 1981-82. Since the question involved in these appeals is common, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. According to the facts appearing in this case, the assessee was formerly the owner of the property at No. 30, Archbishop Mathias Avenue, Madras. It was a self-acquired property. Subsequently, it was thrown into the common hotchpot of the Hindu undivided family and thereby was impressed with the character of Hindu undivided family property. The Hindu undivided family consisted of the assessee, his wife and his major son. Subsequently, by way of a partition deed dated November 2, 1977, the said property was partitioned among the members of the Hindu undivided family by which the ground floor was allotted to the assessee's major son, Shri S.B.S. Raman. The said partition deed provided that a sum of Rs. 1,250 per month shall be paid by the son, S.B.S. ...
Tag this Judgment!