Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1983)5ITD53(Mad.)
..... give life to the non est best judgment assessment or extend the time-limit available for the ito to complete the assessment, that there turn furnished is under section 139(4) of the act and that, therefore, the ito ought to have made an assessment before 31-3-1977.4. what we think is that the assessee is certainly right. if this ..... 6-4-1976 cancelled the best judgment assessment on the following ground : the appellant is aggrieved at the order of the ito, rejecting his application under section 146 of the income-tax act.... there is no material on record to show that a notice under section 139(2) had been issued or served for the assessment year 1974-75. if no notice under ..... section 139(2)had been served, then no notice can be issued under section 142(1). in view of this, i hold that there has been no valid issue .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1986)15ITD432(Mad.)
..... only contention pressed, the others having been given up at the time of hearing, is that the assessee was entitled to investment allowance under section 32a of the income-tax act, 1961 ('the act') in respect of the projector and other allied equipments installed in a cinema theatre and, therefore, the commissioner (appeals) was not justified ..... be manufacture or production of articles or things as required for the purpose of this section. when the act has gone to the extent of excluding manufacture of cinematograph films and projectors from the purview of the allowance under section 32a, it is incomprehensible to contend that the mere projection of a film on to ..... referred to in sub-clause (iii). our attention was invited to sub-clause (iii) of sub-section (2)(b), which by specific mention, disentitles articles or things specified in the list in the eleventh schedule of the act from investment allowance. developing the argument, it was submitted, that the exclusion was in respect of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1988)27ITD389(Mad.)
..... arrived at after setting off losses on property and business, order not erroneous and could not be revised.1. this appeal is directed against the order made under section 263 of the income-tax act, 1961. the assessee is an individual. for the assessment year 1981-82, corresponding to the previous year ended 31-3-1981, the total income was computed as ..... revenue found it difficult to support the order of the commissioner because it was contrary to the specific provisions of the act.3. section 80t says that where the gross total income of the assessee includes income chargeable under the head "capital gains" there shall be allowed a deduction from such income in the ..... an aggregation of the income under the following heads:2. capital gains 2,77,431 less: relief under section 80t 73,108 2,04,3233. other sources 256 2, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1990)32ITD438(Mad.)
..... person who used to file return with respect to the income of the firm. they have also produced certain particulars filed in form no. 52 as envisaged under section 285a(1) of the act. these details as stated in the reply, and which are not in dispute, are:- 1. construction of building (housing unit) at kurichi-date of contract ..... years 1976-77 to 1982-83. since a common issue as to whether the commissioner of income-tax is justified in levying the fine on the assessee under section 285a(2) of the act is involved in all these appeals, they are disposed of by this common order.2. the appellant, a registered firm, consisted of four partners, viz.(1 ..... and other agencies. finding that the assessee failed to comply with or furnishing particulars in form 52 under section 285a(1) of the act, the commissioner issued a detailed show-cause notice on 15-11-1985 under section 285a(2) of the act, to which the assessee filed a reply dated 27-12-1985, stating that shri ramanathan, the managing partner .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1982)1ITD186(Mad.)
..... contention in this appeal is that the earlier years, business loss carried forward cannot be set off against the current year's profit under section 41(2) of the income-tax act, 1961 ("the act"), since no business was carried on by the assessee. the stated facts are that the assessee-company, which was formerly carrying on textile ..... order for this denial. the assessee contended before the commissioner (appeals) that the carried forward business loss for the earlier years should be set off against the profit under section 41(2). the commissioner (appeals) allowed the assessee's claim referring to his predecessor's order in it appeal no. 61 (mds.) of 1979-80 dated 9 ..... year there was no leasing of the properties and the only income derived was the profit under section 41(2) by disposal of the assets. thus no business was carried on during the relevant accounting year. section 41(2) and 72(1) of the act are reproduced below : "41(2) where any building, machinery, plant of furniture which is .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1986)16ITD276(Mad.)
..... and, therefore, he submitted that when the present assessment is a protective one, the imposition of penalty would be barred. it was finally contended that penalty under section 18(1)(b) of the act could not be imposed because the computation was not possible in the circumstances of the case.7. the learned departmental representative placed emphasis on the continued default not ..... minimum and maximum penalties work out to rs. 1,485 and rs. 1,48,515 respectively. i shall, however, levy a penalty of rs. 1,485 under section 18(1)(b) of the act for the assessment year 1974-75.5. before the aac, it was urged that there was sufficient cause for non-filing of the return and for the non ..... the assessee on 20-11-1974. there was no compliance. thus, for this year no return had been filed either under section 14(1) or under section 14(2).3. the wto thereafter issued a notice under section 16(4) of the act to the assessee and the case was fixed for hearing on various dates such as 23-11-1978, 29-11-1978 .....
Tag this Judgment!