Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1993)46ITD157(Mad.)
1. The assessees before us are private discretionary trusts. A single common issue arises for consideration in these cases. And that is whether the assessee-trusts are entitled to deduction under Section 80L of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The Assessing Officer took the line, first, that the status of the assessees must be taken as that of 'Association of Persons' and, secondly, that the assessees are not entitled to deduction under Section 80L of the Act.3. Thereupon, the assessees moved the CIT (Appeals), contending that their status must be taken as that of 'Individual' and that consequently, they were entitled to deduction under Section 80L of the Act. In this regard, reliance was placed on the following orders of the ITAT : 'D' 30-6-1980 ITA Nos. 790 & 791/Mds/ 795 & 796 and 797/Mds/79. 'B' 6-7-1982 ITA Nos. 1666 to 1668/Mds/80.The CIT (Appeals) held that the status of the assessees must be taken as that of "artificial juridical person" and that consequently, they were not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1991)37ITD265(Mad.)
1. These appeals relate to the assessment of the beneficial interest arising from a private family trust.2. The assessee is a trustee representing two beneficiaries under a trust declared on 27-5-1982 by Shri K. Purushotaman. He had set apart a sum of Rs. 10,000 for the benefit of his family members. The trust was to be called 'Anuradha Family Trust' and the trustees were to be Sri S.Thiagarajan, Mrs. Anuradha and Sri Senthil Kumaran (on his attaining the age of majority). Clause 7 of the deed provided that the income of the trust was to be received by all the seven beneficiaries in definite shares mentioned therein as follows :(i) Mr. Thyagarajan (Son-in-law) 25% share of benefit(ii) Mrs. Anuradha wife (i) above 20% do(iii) Senthil Kumaran, minor son of(i) and (ii) above. 15% do(iv) Shanmuga Priya, minor daughterof (i) and (ii) above. 15% share of benefit(v) Would-be wife of Senthil Kumaran(iii) above 10% do(vi) Would be husband of ShanmugaPriya (iv) above. 10% do(vi) Trustees of Sen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
1. This assessee's appeal arises out of the order dt. 12th August, 1996, of the Dy. CIT(A) for the asst. yr. 1993-94 against the confirmation of the penalty levied by the AO under s. 271B of the IT Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 30,165.2. The assessee had filed his return of income for the asst. yr.1993-94 admitting a loss of Rs. 21,450 and agricultural income of Rs. 1,36,500 on 21st December, 1994 along with the tax audit report conducted under s. 44AB of the IT Act, 1961, dt. 21st September, 1993.As per the AO the audit report had to be filed by the assessee by 31st October, 1993, but since the audit report had not been filed by the specified date he initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271B. The assessee on initiation of such proceedings replied to the AO that the assessee has obtained the audit report as required under s. 44AB within the stipulated time, but he could not file it since he could not file the IT return earlier. The AO did not agree with the argument of the assessee an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1991)36ITD448(Mad.)
1. This appeal relates to the claim of exemption in respect of a factory site.2. The assessee is a company. On 24-2-1988 it entered into a 99-year lease with SIPCOT (State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamilnadu Limited) for acquiring a factory site at the industrial complex at Gummidipoondi. The assessee immediately started laying the foundation.As on the valuation date 31-3-1988, the construction of the factory building was in progress. It was completed only after the valuation date. On these facts, the Wealth-tax Officer was of the opinion that the property not being used as a factory on the valuation date it was not exempt and he brought to tax the value of this property at Rs. 1,00,000. On appeal, the CWT(Appeals) noted that the Finance Act, 1988 had brought an amendment to the effect mat unused land held for industrial purpose for a period of 2 years from the date of its acquisition shall not be included in the net wealth. However, he was of the view that since this amendm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1984)7ITD845(Mad.)
1. The question to be decided in this appeal concerns the interpretation of Section 37(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') read with Rule 6D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Delhi Bench 'E' of the Tribunal had occasion to consider this aspect in the case of Bharat Commerce & Industries v. ITO [IT Appeal No. 53 and 538 (Delhi) of 1980 : Assessment year 1975-76] reported in [1981] 7 Taxman 194 (Delhi). By its order dated 22-5-1981 in Bharat Commerce & Industries' case (supra) the Tribunal held that the period spent by an employee in staying on duty at a place outside the headquarters was not period spent in travelling and, hence, the daily allowance paid for such period was outside the disallowance prescribed by Section 37(3)/rule 6D. After laying down this principle, the Delhi Bench sent the case back to the ITO for determining the admissibility of the expenditure claimed after taking into account the actual period spent by the employee outside his headquarters in conducti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1998)66ITD179(Mad.)
1. This appeal by the Department relates to assessment year 1985-86 and arises out of the order of the CIT(Appeals)-III, Madras dated 15-3-1989. The following grounds are raised in this appeal : "1. The order of the CIT(Appeals) is contrary to law and facts of the case. 2. The CIT(Appeals) has erred in holding that no assessment should be made in the hands of the trust. 2.1 The CIT(Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the trustees have carried on business on behalf of the beneficiaries and the latter have acquiesced to the sharing of income. 2.2 The CIT(Appeals) has failed to appreciate that by virtue of mandatory accountability to the beneficiaries, the trustees are to be assessed in fiduciary capacity on representing the association of persons (Trust). 2.3 The CIT(Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of N. V. Shanmugam clearly applies to the assessee's case. 2.4 The CIT(Appeals) has failed to appreciate that by an implie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1989)29ITD69(Mad.)
2. The assessee is a HUF. In the previous year ended 12-4-1983, corresponding to the assessment year 1983-84, the assessee sold 5.34 acres of land in Arapalayam village for a consideration of Rs. 10,05,200. The assessee reinvested this amount in the purchase of agricultural land. Therefore, the assessee claimed that the lands sold were agricultural lands and the consideration having been reinvested in agricultural lands, the assessee was entitled to relief Under Section 54B of the IT Act. The ITO was of the view that the lands sold were not agricultural lands, and, therefore, he brought to tax the capital gains arising from the transfer of the lands and did not consider the claim for exemption. On appeal, the CIT (A) confirmed the assessment.3. In the further appeal before us, it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the lands were agricultural lands as registered in the revenue records, though remaining fallow due to drought situation. It was further submitted that since the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1994)50ITD170(Mad.)
1. The appeal relating to the assessment year 1983-84, which is a recalled appeal, and the appeal relating to the assessment year 1985-86 were heard together and are disposed of by a common order. Both the appeals give rise to common questions. We will first consider the recalled appeal relating to the assessment year 1983-84. Needless to add the decision thereon will be applicable to the assessment year 1985-86 also.Being a company engaged in the business of manufacturing tea, the assessee was entitled to and was granted development allowance under Section 33A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is common ground that as stipulated by and under Section 33A(3)(i) of the Act the assessee created a development allowance reserve in a sum of Rs. 73,000. For the purposes of computing the capital base under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, the assessee took into account the said sum of Rs. 73,000.In this regard the assessee referred to and relied upon the order of the ITAT Cochin Bench in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1998)65ITD87(Mad.)
1. This appeal by the assessee relates to asst. year 1984-85 and arises out of the order of the CIT (Appeals) II, Madras dated 3-1-1991 sustaining the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) in respect of additions to the extent of Rs. 5,73,044.2. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,44,016 under section 271(1)(c) in respect of the asst. year 1984-85 on the ground of concealing the particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee of Rs. 15,54,194. The CIT (Appeals) held that the amount of Rs. 9,66,150 disclosed in the assessee's petition under section 273A and Rs. 15,000 being agricultural income disclosed in the return of income by the assessee should be excluded from the amount of Rs. 15,54,194 considered by the Assessing Officer as concealed income. The CIT (Appeals), therefore, confirmed the levy of penalty in respect of the concealed income of Rs. 5,73,044. The CIT (Appeals) also relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1984)8ITD922(Mad.)
1. The assessee has preferred this appeal against the order dated 21-12-1982 of Shri A.B. Menon, the Commissioner (Appeals) who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee against order dated 30-3-1982 of the IAC (Assessment).2. The only ground in this appeal is that in view of the challenge by other assessees to the amendment of Section 80J and Section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), vide the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, with retrospective effect by way of filing writs in the Supreme Court, whether the amendment is to be followed or not. This issue was there before the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. K.N.Oil Industries [1982] 134 ITR 651 and the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Traco Cable Co. Ltd v. CIT [1982] 138 ITR 385 and also before 'C' Bench of the Tribunal Madras in IT Appeal Nos. 1424 and 1425 (Mad.) of 1982, dated 14-9-1983. The Hon'ble High Courts and the Tribunal (where the Judicial Member and Dr. S. Narayanan, Accountant Member, were parties) ...
Tag this Judgment!