Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1988)26ITD434(Mad.)
1. These appeals filed by the Department relate to the assessment year 1983-84 in the case of the abovesaid assessees. Since the facts are similar and identical questions are involved, these appeals are taken up together and disposed of by a common order.2. The assessees are foreigners and non-residents employed by M/s.Sedco International S.A. M/s. Sedco International is engaged in drilling of oil wells along and offshores of India on contract with the Oil and Natural Gas Commission. In view of Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) read with the Government of India's Notification No. 5147/F.No. 135(79)(ii)/82-83, TPL, dated 31-3-1981 under the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf and Exclusive Economic Zones Act, the salary received by the assessees for services rendered in India became liable to tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961, according to the ITO. The assessees filed their respective returns and paid tax on self-assessments. Thereafter, on the basis of various opinions, the assessee ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1983)5ITD129(Mad.)
1. This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing concessional rate of income-tax, treating the assessee as an industrial company.2. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of construction of flats and sale thereof. For the assessment year 1978-79, corresponding to the previous year ended on 31-3-1978, the ITO determined the total income at Rs. 97,180 and he imposed tax thereon at the usual rate of income-tax. The assessee appealed to contend that the assessee was to be treated as an industrial company and, therefore, the tax should be imposed at the concessional rate. The assessee relied on the decisions of the High Courts in the cases of CIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co. [1980] 121 ITR 212 (Ori.) and National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. v. CWT [1969] 74 ITR 465 (Delhi) and of the Tribunal in the cases of Ahuja Kashyap (P.) Ltd. [IT Appeal Nos. 1407-1413 of 1974-75, dated 7-4-1977, Delhi Bench 'B'], B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1984)7ITD795(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 and arise out of the consolidated order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 1-12-1982 wherein he upheld the action of the ITO clubbing the agricultural income arising to his wife out of agricultural lands transferred to her. In the grounds, the assessee urged that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in applying Section 64(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). These appeals are barred by limitation by two days and the assessee filed an affidavit accompanied by a petition for condonation of the delay. After going through the affidavit we find there was sufficient cause for the delay and, therefore, the delay is condoned.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee is a resident individual and derives income from property, share income and own business as a producer, distributor and financier of the cine films.The assessment years ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1992)41ITD518(Mad.)
1. These three appeals by the assessee give rise to a common issue.They were, therefore, heard together and are disposed of by a common order.2. The income-tax assessment made for these assessment years provides a convenient entry point to the case before us. It is common ground that the assessee was following straight line method of charging depreciation. Consequently, the amount of depreciation actually booked was less than the depreciation allowed in the income-tax assessments.The data abstracted below will make the position clear:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Accounting I.T. Assessment Deprn. Deprn. as per Shortfall Progressiveyear ending year provided I.T. records in the totalon in the finally deter- deprn. books -mined (without booked Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------31-3-1980 1980-1981 5,51,718 6,99,539 1,47,821 1,47,82131-3-1981 1981-1982 5,43,089 10,02...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1991)39ITD229(Mad.)
1. This appeal relates to the claim of the assessee for exemption under Section 54E of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Section 54E was originally inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act of 1977 with effect from 1-4-1978. It provided that where the assessee invests the consideration received in respect of a transfer of capital asset in any specified asset, there will be a proportional abatement of tax on capital gains to the extent of the investment. The explanation stated that specified asset would mean among other items deposits for a period of not less than 3 years with the State Bank of India or other notified Banks. The Finance Act, 1978 provided a further condition that a declaration should be given along with the deposit that no loan will be taken upon the fixed deposit. In the Budget Speech presenting the Finance Bill, 1979, the Finance Minister stated: The scheme of taxation of capital gains was modified in 1977 in several directions. One of the changes made was to provide for exemption f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1988)24ITR261(Mad.)
1. to 21. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involved minor issues.] 22. The last objection in the revenue's appeal is to the decision of the CIT (Appeals) holding that the exemption under Section 54 was available to the assessee, who was assessed in the status of HUF.During the previous year, the assessee sold his residential house at No. 110, West Sandaipettai Street, Madurai for Rs. 6 lakhs on 6-5-1981.In respect of the long-term capital gains arising on the sale of this property, the assessee claimed exemption Under Section 54(1) of the IT Act, which was disallowed by the ITO for the reason that the assessee was not entitled to this relief, as he was being assessed in the status of a Hindu Undivided Family. According to the Income-tax Officer only individuals can claim this relief Under Section 54(1). The CIT (Appeals), however, disagreed with this view of the Income-tax Officer and held that the language used in Section 54(1) was such that the relief could be claimed ei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1992)43ITD543(Mad.)
1. This appeal is directed against the disallowance made under Section 37(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The assessee is a registered firm deriving income as a wholesale dealer in electrical appliances. For the assessment year 1984-85, corresponding to the previous year ended 31-3-1984, the assesssee filed a return showing an income of Rs. 1,83,070. In computing that income, the assessee had taken into account miscellaneous expenditure accounted for in its head office and three branch offices. When the I.T.O. called for information about the same, the assesssee by letter dated 15-3-1985 informed him that the miscellaneous expenditure incurred included maintenance, cleaning, stationery, labour welfare expenses, medical expenses for staff, purchase of newspaper etc. In the Madras office Rs. 9,632.45 specifically represented expenditure incurred for offering coffee, tea etc. to visitors. In the other three branches, no such specific information was available. The I.T.O., therefore, c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1995)53ITD362(Mad.)
1. ITA No. 493/Mds./1992 is the assessee's appeal directed against the order dated 18-12-1991 of the CIT(Appeals)-VI, Madras, relating to the assessment year 1989-90. Cross-objection No. 56/Mds/1991 filed by the assessee is related to the departmental appeal bearing ITA No.1655/Mds/1991 (assessment year 1988-89). The cross-objection in question, however, raises no issue which is common to the issue raised in the said departmental appeal. On the contrary, the issues raised in the said cross-objection are common with the issues raised in the assessee's appeal relating to the assessment year 1989-90.In the circumstances, therefore, the departmental appeal bearing ITA No. 1655/Mds/1991 (assessment year 1988-89) was delinked for being heard separately together with the departmental appeal relating to the assessment year 1987-88. Cross-objection No. 56/Mds/1991 was, however, heard along with the assessee's appeal bearing ITA No. 493/Mds/1992 (assessment year 1989-90).2. The facts of the cas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1992)42ITD349(Mad.)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the C.I.T.(A)-IX, Madras in IT Appeal No. 14/DC. Sp. R. IV/90-91 dated 18-2-1991 relating to the assessment year 1987-88.2. The assessee is a corporation wholly owned and controlled by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The previous year relevant to the assessment year 1987-88 ended on 31-3-1987. For the said assessment year it filed a return of income disclosing an income of Rs. 18,71.360. In the course of the assessment proceedings relating to the said assessment year the Assessing Oificer found that the head 'Outstanding expenses' encompassed the following items :(1) Addl. Vend Fee on IMFS : Rs. 4,57,64,951(2) Addl. Vend Fee on Beer : Rs. 67,08,125(3) Addl. Vend Fee on Arrack : Rs. 33,44,168(4) Addl. Vend Fee on IMFS & Wine : Rs. 3,20,50,668(5) Addl. Vend Fee on Beer : Rs. 1,04,62.820 --------------- The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the provisions made in respect of the aforesaid items were hit by the provi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1992)42ITD27(Mad.)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26-10-1987 of the CIT (A) VI, Madras relating to the assessment year 1981 -82.2. For the assessment year 1981-82 the assessee-company filed its surtax return disclosing chargeable profits of Rs. 8,57,698. On his part, the Assessing Officer starting from the total income of the assessee of Rs. 54,73,870 (as determined in order dated 23-7-1984), and after making the necessary adjustments, determined the chargeable profits at Rs. 17,34,414. Thereafter, he computed the capital base at Rs. 50,91,995 as detailed below:Capital Rs. 30,09,200General reserve Rs. 16,00,000Development Rebate Reserve Rs. 5,52,893Investment allowance Reserve Rs. 2,21,119 Rs. 53,83,212up to 80-81 Rs. 2,88,427 ----------------Rs. 50,94,785 x 3000 Rs. 2,790--------------------- = ----------------Rs. 54,73,870 x 3000Capital: Rs. 50,91,995 ----------------- On the aforesaid basis the Assessing Officer computed the excess of chargeable profit over the sta...
Tag this Judgment!