Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1983)3ITD686(Mad.)
1. The assessee is a private limited company. The calendar year ending 31-12-1972 is the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1973-74 in respect of this appeal filed before us. In making the assessment of the assessee-company under Section, 143(3), read with Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the ITO added a sum of Rs. 29,865 by observing as under : ADD : Gratuity provision claimed in adjustment is Rs. 29,865. As no approved fund is created the claim is disallowed : Rs. 29,865. The claim of gratuity for Rs. 29,865 in the adjustment statement, was made on the basis of the mercantile basis of accounting followed by the company. As per the decision of the Supreme Court in Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC), the above claim has to be taken into account for arriving at the income. In this connection, the appellant begs to rely on the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench 'C in the case of Doolahat Tea Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1983)3ITD714(Mad.)
1. In these group of appeals relating to different parties, the sole point that arose for consideration is whether the subsidy received from the State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd. ('SIPCOT') could be said to be a portion of the cost of the assets entitled to depreciation 'met' directly or indirectly by that authority so as to reduce the cost of those assets to the assessees. This matter became relevant for the. purpose of allowing depreciation.2. Under the Income-tax Act, depreciation is allowable to an assessee on specified assets utilised for business at a percentage of the actual cost of that asset to the assessee. Occasions may arise when an assessee may incur some expenditure on acquiring an asset, but a part of the cost may have been provided by some other agency in a way as to reduce the cost of that asset to the assessee. In such an event, a question will arise as to what is the cost of asset to the assessee on which depreciation is to be. allowed to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1983)3ITD617(Mad.)
1. This departmental appeal relates to the assessment year 1975-76. The accounting year is the year ended 30-6-1974. The assessee-company follows mercantile system of accounting. The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 came into force on 16-9-1972. The law provided that industrial undertakings, like the assessee-company, should pay gratuity calculated at a certain rate to its employees on their retirement or termination of their employment. The first accounting year after that law came into force was the year ended 30-6-1973, relevant to the assessment year 1974-75. However, no provision was made in the accounts of the assessee for gratuity payable to its employees on such retirement or termination. Then the assessee, in its accounting year ended 30-6-1974 (which is the second year of liability), made a provision in its accounts for Rs. 1,06,889 for payment of such gratuity. This figure of Rs. 1,06,889 was arrived at by the Actuarial valuation of the liability as on 30-6-1974 by taking into...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1983)3ITD148(Mad.)
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the AAC allowing deduction under Section 16(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in respect of the total amount assessed under the head 'Salaries'.2. The assessee is an individual who was an employee of Rallis India Ltd. and retired on 1-11-1975. The assessee's income chargeable under the head 'Salaries' for the previous year ended 31-3-1976 was Rs. 30,892. This included a sum of Rs. 5,468 being gratuity received by the assessee in excess of the amount exempt under Section 10 of the Act and Rs. 10,010 being ex gratia payment received as terminal benefit. The ITO omitted to take into consideration these two amounts in. computing the standard deduction allowable under Section 16(i). On appeal, the AAC found that these amounts having been assessed under the head 'Salaries' they could not be omitted in computing the standard deduction and directed the ITO to recompute the deduction accordingly.3. The revenue is in appeal and it is cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1982)1ITD1120(Mad.)
1. These bunch of appeals, five by the assessee, Dr. (Mrs.) G. Isaac, relating to her wealth-tax assessment for the years 1974-75 to 1978-79, and three by the department, pertaining to her wealth-tax assessment for the years 1974-75, 1977-78 and 1978-79, are conveniently disposed of by this consolidated order.2. Taking up the assessee's appeal for the year 1974-75, there are two grounds of objection. The first objection is against the rejection of the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 6(ii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ("the Act"), on an amount of Rs. 19,68,810 which stood deposited in her account, originally styled "Non-resident (External) Account", under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 ("FERA"). The second ground of objection involves the assessee's claim for deduction of income-tax and wealth-tax liability for the assessment year 1974-75 as determined in the assessment.3. The relevant facts for consideration of the assessee's first objection may be stated. The a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1982)1ITD1077(Mad.)
1. These three appeals, two by the assessee and one by the department, in respect of the assessment years 1977-78 and 1979-80, are being disposed of together, since common issues are raised in all of them.The main point for decision in these cases is, whether the assessee, who is running a modern poultry farm, would be entitled to deduction under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act").2. The assessee-company has a poultry farm near Poona. They have a large number of birds in that farm. The company claims that they are running the poultry farm on a large-scale with modern scientific methods. The steps taken in the large-scale production of chicks have been set out by the company in a note, given to the department, in support of their claim for deduction under Section 80J. 2. The eggs are collected from the breeding farm frequently and hygienic-ally. Then they are transported to the hatchery. Before admitting the eggs into the hatchery they pass through the fumigation chamb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1982)2ITD512(Mad.)
1. The departmental appeal relates to the assessment year 1974-75. The question is whether in a sale of house property the AAC was right in saying that profit on land shall be treated as long-term capital gains and on building as short-term capital gains, where the ITO has treated the entire thing as short-term capital gains. The cross-objection is to the effect that no capital gains have accrued and that the assessment is time-barred.2. IT APPEAL NO. 346 (MAD.) 81 [DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL] - A house property was sold for Rs. 1,30,000. The land had been purchased in 1968, by the wife of the assessee at a cost of Rs. 16,065, which funds were supplied by the assessee-husband. Then a building was put up in 1972 at a cost of Rs. 73,220 out of which Rs. 43,220 were contributed by the assessee.The aggregate of the contribution for house property was Rs. 59,285 made up of Rs. 16,065 for land and Rs. 43,220 for house construction.The total cost of construction worked out to Rs. 89,285 made up of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1982)2ITD624(Mad.)
1. These fifteen appeals arise out of the orders of AAC, Madurai, in the cases of the five different assessees who are all HUFs. S/Shri P.K.Inbarajan and P.K. Yogarajan are kartas of two families, one a larger family including a son and the other a smaller one without him. That is why there are five different assessees with three names. Since common facts are involved and a single common issue arises in all these cases, they are conveniently dealt with together.2. All these assessees had claimed and were allowed the following rebates under Section 80C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in respect of their contributions to public provident fund as under :------------------------------------------------------------------------------------IT Appeal Name of the assessee Asst. Amount of Amountof No. year relief Under Section 80C tax rebate------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1307/81 P.K. Ramaswamy Nadar 1976-77 1,906 6271308/81 P.K. Ramas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1983)3ITD216(Mad.)
1. This is an appeal filed by Sivasundar Heat Treatment Services, against the order of the AAC, E-Range, Madras, for the assessment year 1979-80.2. The assessee is a registered firm doing business of providing process servicing known as 'hot-blasting' in the processing of forgings. The assessee is eligible for relief under Section 80HHA and Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). In respect of relief under Section 80J, the dispute relates to the question of treatment to be accorded to borrowed capital in ascertaining the capital base for the purposes of relief. The second dispute relates to the decision of the ITO that he cannot allow relief under Section 80J if the relief under Section 80HHA exceeds the relief under Section 80J.On both these issues, the first appellate authority confirmed the view of the ITO. The assessee is, therefore, in second appeal. The learned counsel argued that the validity of the retrospective amendment authorising the exclusion of borrowed capi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1983)3ITD221(Mad.)
1. These six appeals relating to the assessee, Shri S.P. Jayakumar, involving identical facts and dispute for our consideration are conveniently disposed of by this consolidated common order.2. The appeals are by the department and relate to the levy of penalty under Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'), for the assessment years 1970-71 to 1975-76, for the assessee's default in filing the returns of net wealth within the prescribed time. The wealth-tax returns for all these years were filed by the assessee on 27-1-1976 voluntarily, in the sense that before any notice was issued to him to submit the returns. In response to the notice issued by the WTO under Section 18(2) proposing levy of penalty, the assessee submitted that he was not aware of the provisions of the Act and Rules and it is only when the Government of India publicised the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme ('VDS') that he consulted his tax practitioner and it is on his advice, that he filed the returns. The...
Tag this Judgment!