Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1995)54ITD661(Mad.)
1. These appeals by the assessee are consolidated and disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience as they involve common issue.These appeals pertain to the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87 and arise out of separate orders of the CIT(Appeals)-DC, Madras dated 16-3-1989 for the assessment year 1985-86 and 2-3-1989 for the assessment year 1986-87. The common issue involved in these appeals is whether the return of loss filed for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87 are valid in law so as to be eligible for carrying forward of loss to subsequent years for the purpose of set of f of such losses against profits of subsequent years or not. In other words, whether the returns of loss filed for these years have become non est in terms of Section 139(10) of the IT Act, 1961 or not.2. The assessee filed return of loss (date has not been specified anywhere in the assessment order or the appellate order) admitting loss of Rs. 3,26,499 for the assessment year 1985-86. The Asse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1995)54ITD667(Mad.)
1. This is an appeal by the revenue which is directed against the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 27-12-1988 wherein he held that depreciation on buildings claimed by the assessee but disallowed by the Assessing Officer is to be allowed because the title deeds in respect of lands and buildings in question have already been passed on to the assessee with effect from 16-1-1975 right from its inception and necessary changes have been effected in the revenue records to that effect as per G.O. Ms. No. 1402 Transport Dept. dated 10-9-1979 with the result the assessee has become the owner of the lands and buildings in question.He has also relied upon the order of the Tribunal for earlier years and the decision of the CIT (Appeals) relating to the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85. Accordingly, he directed the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation on 'B' class buildings in accordance with the provisions of law.2. The revenue has taken grounds to urge that the decision of the CIT (Appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1995)54ITD694(Mad.)
1. This is an appeal by the revenue which is directed against the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 3-10-1988 wherein he cancelled the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271 (1 )(c). The revenue has taken the grounds to urge that the CIT (Appeals) erred in cancelling the penalty and he failed to appreciate that the search took place on 8-10-1985 and therefore, the amendment in Explanation 5 effective from 10-9-1986 was not applicable to the facts of the assessee's case and therefore, he erred in holding that no penalty is exigible in view of the second exception contained in Explanation 5 to Section 271(l)(c). It was also urged that but for the search conducted by the department on 8-10-1985, the concealed income would not have come to the surface. Therefore, the CIT (Appeals) ought to have upheld the levy of penalty.2. The facts leading to the levy of penalty for concealment of income under Section 271(l)(c) have been stated in the impugned orders of the Assessing O...
Tag this Judgment!