Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1989)31ITD338(Mad.)
1. This is a departmental appeal relating to the assessment year 1983-84. The only point involved in this appeal is whether the centering sheets, machinery and tools employed by the assessee, who carries on business in construction work and who undertakes work contracts at different places, is entitled to investment allowance. For the accounting year in question centering sheets valuing Rs. 45,943 was introduced into the business of the assessee. The assessee was claiming Rs. 20,441 towards investment allowance on centering sheets, machinery and tools employed by him hi his business. The Income-tax Officer refused to allow anything towards investment allowance firstly on the ground that the assessee does not maintain any industrial undertaking.Secondly that the centering sheets cannot be called either plant or machinery and they are not entitled to investment allowance. Thirdly the Income-tax Officer states in his assessment order that Section 32A(2) does not refer to construction wor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (2000)73ITD180(Chennai)
1. The assessee, a limited company has filed the appeal aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals)-II, Chennai [CWT(A) for short] dt. 19th October, 1989. The grievance of the appellant-company is with reference to the provisions of s. 40 of the Finance Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The plea as raised in this appeal is that the said section that was amended by the Finance Act, 1988 had extended the exemption to the buildings that are owned by the company and used by it for the residence of its employees without any restriction to the salary that are paid to such employees, is to be applied retrospectively for the assessment year under appeal and the wealth of the assessee should be computed by allowing exemption to the buildings that are used by it as residential building for housing its employees who draw pay in excess of Rs. 10,000 and as transit accommodation for its employees who are on official visit of Calcutta.2. The residential building...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1994)50ITD576(Mad.)
1. The assessee is the appellant and the appeals are directed against the orders of the CIT (Appeals) dated 4-10-1991, 21-10-1991 and 6-8-1992. As common issues are involved in all these appeals, they were heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. Common issue No. 1 : Valuation of the property situated at No. 35, Mount Road, Nandanam, Madras. The facts of the case are that in May 1974 the assessee purchased a site admeasuring about 41 grounds, together with some structures standing therein, for a stated consideration of Rs. 11,72,097. Initially, it is common ground, the assessee treated the said site as investment. Accordingly it disclosed the said site in its balance-sheet under the head "Investments at cost".3. Subsequently, in early 1980, the assessee decided to enter into real estate business for which purpose it made suitable amendments to its Memorandum of Association, which were approved by the Company Law Board, Southern Region, Madras,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1994)48ITD191(Mad.)
1. These appeals relate to the taxability of the amounts received on the promotion of a multi-storeyed building. The assessee is an individual. He was the owner of a plot of land measuring 48,828 s. ft.at 146/149, Montieth Road, Egmore, Madras. There was an old godown building which was let out to Indian Explosives Ltd. By a settlement deed dated 24-6-1960 the assessee gifted a portion of this land to his wife and by another deed dated 20-4-1972 he gifted another portion to his two major sons. Consequently, the assessee was left with 71.97 per cent of the land, his wife 12.03 per cent and his two major sons 8 per cent each. On 15-1 -1986 the assessee, his wife and his two sons entered into an agreement with M/s. Alsa Investments (P.) Ltd. called guaranteed selling agent. This deed receited that the assessee had appointed M/s. Alsa Properties to construct a multi-storyed shopping complex called "Khaleeli Centre" with 73,485 sq. ft. of super built-up area and 34 garages under stilts, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1997)60ITD267(Mad.)
1. These appeals have been filed by the revenue for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90. The main business of the assessee-company is production of films. In the process of development of printing of films and chemicals are used, out of which flakes and dust are accumulated, which contain silver. After processing and cleaning the flakes and dust, pure silver is accumulated by the company which has been sold in the market. The value of the silver sold in the market has been shown by the assessee as income from business in its income-tax assessments.While computing the wealth-tax assessments, the Assessing Officer included the value of the silver in the net wealth of the assessee for the two assessment years. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) against the said order passed by the Assessing Officer.According to the assessee, the silver collected from the dust and flakes is not asset within the meaning of section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983 so that it can be included...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1989)29ITD29(Mad.)
1. These three appeals are against the orders of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Tamil Nadu-II, Madras, passed under Section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, setting aside the assessments made on the assessee for the assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 with directions to the Wealth-tax Officer to redo them in accordance with law.2. The appellant is a private limited company carrying on business in the exhibition of cinematograph films. For this purpose it owns a theatre building, which is used exclusively for the purpose of its film exhibition business. These appeals arise out of its wealth-tax assessments for the three assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87, for which the valuation dates were 31-3-1984, 31-3-1985 and 31-3-1986, respectively. For these three years the Wealth-tax Officer accepted the returns file d by the assessee and completed the assessments under Section 16(3) of the Wealth-tax Act on 18-3-1987.These orders were considered to be erroneous and prej...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (2006)100ITD199(Chennai)
1. Under Section 255(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as "the Act") the Hon'ble President of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called "the Tribunal") has constituted this Special Bench to consider the following question: Whether amendment in proviso to Section 43B by Finance Act, 2003 could be construed to be curative, as such retrospective in nature? 2. We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us and precedents relied upon. We have also heard the ld.counsel for the Intervener. The assessee in this case paid contribution to Provident Fund before the due date applicable in its case for furnishing the return under Section 139(1) of the Act, albeit payment was made beyond due date prescribed in Section 36(1)(vd) of the Act for making the contribution to the employee's account in the relevant fund under the law. Question posed before the Tribunal was whether deduction can be allowed in respect of the said payment in view of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (2000)242ITR55(Mad.)
1. This is an appeal of the assessee challenging the order dated 23-3-1989 of the CIT (Appeals) as erroneous.2. The facts of the case are gathered from the record briefly these.The assessee has filed a return of income admitting a total income of Rs. 1,26,135. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment by the order dated 30-11-1983 on a total income of Rs. 5,32,480. On appeal, the Appellate Commissioner has given substantial relief and also sought relief in respect of additions under 'other sources' pertaining to jewellery and cash seized. While so, the Assessing Officer levied a penalty on the additions sustained by the Appellate Commissioner amounting to Rs. 1,00,000 under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. On appeal, the Appellate Commissioner has held that the assessee has conceded his income pertaining to the unexplained cash of Rs. 50,000 the addition of which was confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) in the quantum and that therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to recalculat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (2003)84ITD459(Chennai)
1. In view of the common grounds involved in these two appeals filed by the same assessee, they are consolidated in a common order for the sake of convenience. These appeals by the assessee M/s Coimbatore Insulation Tapes (P) Ltd., Avanashi Road, Tirupur are directed against the common order passed by the CIT(A), Coimbatore in the income-tax assessments for the asst. yrs. 1976-77 and 1977-78.2. The assessee is a private limited company. Previously the company was carrying on the business of manufacture of rubber products. There was no business activity during the previous years relevant to the asst. yrs. 1976-77 and 1977-78 as the company had discontinued its business. In the previous year ending on 31st March, 1976, the assessee received a sum of Rs. 1,80,000 on sale of machinery. The AO computed the profit under Section 41(2) of the IT Act on the sale of the machinery at Rs. 1,18,539. The assessee was also in receipt of Rs. 75,000 as lease rent on letting out the business premises. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1990)34ITD77(Mad.)
1. These appeals raise the question whether the assessee could be considered as an industrial company for the purposes of Sections 32A, 80J and for concessional rate of tax and may be disposed of by a common order.2. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of repairing ocean going vessels. In computing the income of the previous year ended 30th September, 1980, corresponding to the assessment year 1981-82, the Income-tax Officer granted duductions under Section 80J as well as investment allowance under Section 32A subject to creation of reserve.3. For the assessment year 1982-83, the Income-tax Officer rejected the claim for investment allowance but treated the assessee as an industrial company under the Finance Act for the purpose of levying tax at a concessional rate.4. The Commissioner of Income-tax on a review of the aforesaid assessments held that the assessee was not entitled to investment allowance under Section 32 A and deduction under Section 80J as ...
Tag this Judgment!