Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1992)42ITD39(Kol.)
1. These three appeals filed by the assessee pertain to the assessment years 1981-82 to 1983-84. For the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83, they are directed against the common order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, dated 19-2-1990, passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act. For the assessment year 1983-84, the appeal is directed against the order dated 24-3-1987 passed by the CIT(A) in appeal against the assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 164(1)/144 A of the Act. The issue in all the appeals is common; in fact, while passing the order under Section 263, the CIT has relied on and adopted the reasons, set out in the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 1983-84. Since the issue is common and since all the appeals were heard together on the same day, we dispose them of by a common order, for the sake of convenience.2. The question posed before us for decision is whether the assessee-trust is liable to be assessed at the maximum marginal rate of tax u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin
Reported in : (1992)42ITD427(Coch.)
1. This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of the Controller of Estate Duty (Appeals) deleting an addition of Rs. 6,70,000 lying in the N.R.E. Account of the deceased on the ground that the deceased was domiciled in Bahrain. The grievance of the revenue is that the first appellate authority ought to have found that the deceased was a married woman and, therefore, she could not have an independent domicile other than that of her husband.2. Dr. (Mrs.) Mary Cherian passed away on 16-10-1981. The Accountable Person at the time of filing the statement of accounts stated that the deceased was domiciled in Bahrain. In support of his claim the Accountable Person filed before the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty a letter dated 16-9-1979 written by the deceased from Bahrain to her husband wherein she has specifically and categorically expressed her desire that she had decided to adopt the domicile of Bahrain and settle down in Bahrain permanently. It was also stated that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin
Reported in : (1993)46TTJ(Coch.)98
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CED(A) deleting an addition of Rs. 6,70,000 lying in the N.R.E. Account of the deceased on the ground that the deceased was domiciled in Bahrain. The grievance of the Revenue is that the first appellate authority ought to have found that the deceased was a married woman and, therefore, she could not have an independent domicile other than that of her husband.2. Dr. (Mrs.) Mary Cherian passed away on 16th Oct., 1981. The Accountable Person at the time of filing the statement of accounts stated that the deceased was domiciled in Bahrain. In support of his claim the Accountable Person file before the Asstt. CED a letter dt.16th Sept., 1979 written by the deceased from Bahrain to her husband wherein she has specifically and categorically expressed her desire that she had decided to adopt the domicile of Bahrain and settle down in Bahrain permanently. It was also stated that the change of domicile was also prompted by reason o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (1993)46TTJ(Ahd.)136
This is an appeal by the Revenue which arises out of the order of the CIT(A)-IV, Ahmedabad dt. 20th Dec., 1988. Several grounds of appeal have been raised by the Revenue disputing the decision of the CIT(A) to urge that the CIT(A) erred in his decision and therefore, his order should be set aside and that of the ITO should be restored.2. The assessee is an individual. The assessment year involved is 1985-86 for which the accounting period ended on 30th June, 1984. The assessee filed return on 21st May, 1986 admitting total income of Rs. 30,590 but the ITO determined the total income at Rs. 4,00,165 after making several additions and disallowances.3. The first issue involved relates to loss of Rs. 27,279 in the business of M/s. Gujarat Parquet Flooring & Furnishing Centre. The ITO rejected the claim of loss in the aforesaid business on the ground that the assessee had not produced any books in support of the loss sustained. From the information furnished, he concluded that no prosp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (1992)43ITD691(Ahd.)
1. There are a number of grounds in-this appeal but the ground regarding which arguments were made most extensively is an additional ground. It is an important ground. If it is decided in favour of the assessee it would not be necessary to decide the other grounds. That ground is that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer is barred by limitation. It arises in this way.2. The assessment order has been passed on 24-9-1984 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B. The assessee had filed objections to the draft assessment order. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) had passed an order under Section 125A(1) conferring concurrent jurisdiction over this case on the IAC from 1-11-1978. The assessee's contention is that since this concurrent jurisdiction had been conferred, the provisions of section 144B would not be applicable by virtue of sub-Section (7) thereof so that the extension of limitation period available under Section 153, Explanation 1 (iv) was not available and that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (1993)46TTJ(Ahd.)1
There are a number of grounds in this appeal but the ground regarding which arguments were made most extensively is an additional ground. It is an important ground. If it is decided in favour of the assessee it would not be necessary to decide the other grounds. That ground is that the order passed by the ITO is barred by limitation. It arises in this way.2. The assessment order has been passed on 24th Sept., 1984 under S.143(3) r/w S. 144B. The assessee had filed objections to the draft assessment order. The CIT (Central) had passed an order under S.125A(1) conferring concurrent jurisdiction over this case on the IAC from 1st Nov., 1978. The assessees contention is that since this concurrent jurisdiction had been conferred the provisions of S. 144B would not be applicable by virtue of sub-s. (7) thereof so that the extension of limitation period available under S. 153, Expln. 1(iv) was not available and that therefore, the normal period of limitation was applicable. Since, the assess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1993)1ITD45(Hyd.)
1. These appeals have been set down for hearing by a Special Bench as they involve a common question of law of general importance relating to the construction of Section 115J of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The facts relating to Messrs. Surana Steels (P.) Ltd. (I. T. A. No.1845/ (Hyd.) of 1990) are as follows. The assessee is a private limited company. For the assessment year 1988-89, corresponding to the previous year ending on October 22, 1987, the net profit according to the profit and loss account was Rs. 27,67,443. The Assessing Officer, by assessment order dated April 7, 1989, read with the rectification order dated September 20, 1989, deducted unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 10,63,855 (made up of Rs. 10,10,304 for the assessment year 1986-87 and Rs. 53,551 for the assessment year 1987-88) and determined the book profits at Rs. 17,03,588 in order to apply the provisions of Section 115J. Thirty per cent. of this amount came to Rs. 5,11,076 which was determined as the taxable income...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1993)46TTJ(Hyd.)458
These appeals have been set down for hearing by a Special Bench as they involve a common question of law of general importance relating to the construction of S. 115J of the IT Act, 1961.2. The facts relating to M/s. Surana Steels (P) Ltd. (ITA No.1845/Hyd/90) are as follows. The assessee is a Pvt. Ltd. Co. For the asst. yr. 1988-89, corresponding to the previous year ended 22nd Oct., 1987, the net profit according to the Profit & Loss account was Rs. 27,67,443. The Assessing Officer by assessment order dt. 7th April, 1989 read with the rectification order dt. 20th Sept., 1989 deducted unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 10,63,855 (made up of Rs. 10,10,304 for asst. yr. 1986-87 and Rs. 53,551 for asst. yr. 1987-88) and determined the book profits at Rs. 17,03,588 in order to apply the provisions of S. 115J. Thirty per cent of this amount came to Rs. 5,11,076 which was determined as the taxable income since it was higher than Rs. 4,26,714 being the income computed under the other provis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1993)47ITD58(Kol.)
1. Controversy in this assessee's appeal is whether the sum of Rs. 1 lac received by the assessee as gift through banking channels from a resident of Nepal is to be considered as income of the assessee from some undisclosed sources and assessed to tax.2. The pertinent facts giving rise to this controversy are that during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1983-84 the assessee received a gift of Rs. 1 lac by way of bank draft credited to the assessee's bank account in Union Bank of India. It was contended by the assessee that she received a gift from one Shri R.N. Agarwal who was his dharambhai for over two decades and he, out of natural love and affection for her, made a gift of the said sum from out of the moneys brought by him from Nepal Bank Ltd., Kathmandu drawn on Chartered Bank, Calcutta. The assessee also filed a sworn declaration by the donor, Shri R.N. Agarwal of Kathmandu, Nepal in which he stated as under : (1) that he gifted Rs. 1,00,000 to Smt. Bhagwati Dev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1993)46ITD31(Mum.)
..... assessee is only a director and not a permanent chairman of the company.21. there is no prohibition under the nepalese company law on investment made in india by any nepali company and this stands proved by page 309 of the assessee's paper book, which is again a certificate from the above-mentioned chartered accountant, n. krishnaswamy and co.22 .....
Tag this Judgment!