Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1982)1ITD160(Kol.)
1. These appeals by the assessee, Ram Gopal Neotia of Calcutta, an individual, directed against four different orders of the IAC, Range VII, Calcutta, each dated 31-3-1977 under Section 271(1)(c), levying penalties of Rs. 2,600 for the assessment year 1958-59, Rs. 5,279 for the assessment year 1959-60, Rs. 2,304 for the assessment year 1960-61 and Rs. 3,189 for the assessment year 1961-62, for having concealed the particulars of his income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof for each of the said years, have been consolidated, heard together and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience. As already stated, the years of assessment involved are 1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62 for which the respective previous years ended 31-3-1958, 31-3-1959, 31-3-1960 and 31-3-1961.2. The admitted facts in the present appeals and/or found by us are that on the returns originally filed by the assessee for the years under consideration, the ITO completed the assess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin
Reported in : (1982)1ITD1131(Coch.)
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty, Ernakulam, dated 19-12-1977, in ED Appeal No. 6/1972-73/EKM, relating to the assessment on the death of Shri Rama Varma Pareekshit Thampuran, the Maharaja of the erstwhile State of Cochin, on 11-12-1964.2. In pursuance of a notice under Section 55 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ("the Act"), the accountable person, Shri Rama Varma Kunjikidavu Thampuran, filed a statement before the Assistant Controller on 22-11-1971. A contention was raised that the estate of the Maharaja of Cochin is not assessable to estate duty in respect of the properties attached to the Maharaja and that the accountable person was, therefore, not liable to submit the account called for. It was further contended that the properties belonging to the Maharaja of Cochin, compendiously known as the Palliyara Muthalpidi Estate, did not pass under any of the provisions of the Estate Duty Act on the death of the Maharaja and that the Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1984)8ITD57(Mum.)
1. These two appeals, one each by the assessee and the ITO, relate to the assessee's assessment for the assessment year 1967-68. The assessee is a non-resident company. It filed its returns of income for the first time for the assessment year 1971-72, inter alia, disclosing a loss of Rs. 7,272. The assessment was completed on 1-7-1975 determining the total income at Rs. 33,120. Return for the assessment year 1972-73 was filed on 10-2-1976 disclosing dividend income on 21,000 equity shares held by it in an Indian company by the name Albright Morarji & Pandit Ltd. During the course of proceedings for the assessment year 1972-73, the ITO came to learn that the assessee-company has sold its technical know-how relating to its designs, drawings, specifications, etc., and also certain patents to the Indian company under an agreement dated 10-2-1966 and that in consideration thereof the Indian company had allotted 21,000 equity shares of Rs. 50 each out of its initial issue of shares to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1983)3ITD677(Mum.)
1. These are two cross appeals from the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the assessee, a registered firm, engaged in construction of buildings is eligible for deduction under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').2. The assessee is a firm constituted under a deed of partnership dated 24-4-1974. The partnership business is constructing buildings on a plot of land allotted to them by the Government of Maharashtra at Nariman Point. The building would consist of several shops, offices, basements and garages, which were sold to various persons on ownership basis.3. In the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1979-80, for which the accounting year was the year ended 30-6-1978, the assessee claimed that they were entitled to deduction under Section 80J. The ITO held that the assessee was not eligible for the deduction, while, on appeal the Commissioner (Appeals), following the decisions of the Bombay Tribunal Benches in some other cases held that the assess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1983)6ITD341(Hyd.)
1. These appeals by the assessee arise out of wealth-tax proceedings and relate to the assessment years 1974-75 and 1977-78.2. The assessee is an individual. Relevant valuation date is 31st March preceding the relevant assessment year. The assessee was a partner in a firm which carried on business under the style of Triveni Nut Powder Manufacturing Co. Prior to becoming a partner of the firm, the assessee was carrying on business in the manufacture of betelnut powder right from 1948. With effect from 15-6-1955, he registered the trade mark'Triveni' under the Trade Marks Act, 1940, and a certificate of registration in this regard was given by the Registrar of Trade Marks on 2-8-1957.3. An instrument of partnership was executed on 12-3-1966 which stated that from 2-4-1965 a partnership firm had come into existence for the carrying on of the business of manufacture and sale of betelnut powder with 'Triveni Nut Powder' trade mark which was held by the assessee.The assessee, who was 35 at ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1983)6ITD448(Hyd.)
1. This is an appeal filed by Radhakrishna Fruits Co. of Tenali objecting to the order of AAC confirming refusal of registration for the assessment year 1979-80.2. The assessee is a partnership firm with 4 partners which had started its business on 31-3-1978. The partnership deed was executed on 7-4-1978. Clause 9 of the partnership deed reads as under: On 31st of March of every year or such other date as the parties may find it convenient, an account shall be taken of all the assets and liabilities of the firm and the net profit or loss be determined which shall be divided or borne by the parties as mentioned in clause No. 4 supra. The accounts for the first time will be closed to profit and loss on 31-3-1979.Though the accounting year for the other years could end on a date at the convenience of the partners, it was pointed out that the firm's books had to be closed for the first time on 31-3-1979. The assessee had closed its accounts only on 1-4-1979. It was stated by the assessee ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1984)7ITD184(Mad.)
1. IT Appeal No. 341 (Mad.) of 1983 is an appeal by the assessee and IT Appeal No. 512 (Mad.) of 1983 is an appeal by the revenue, both relating to the assessment year 1978-79.2. The appeal preferred by the assessee, that is, IT Appeal No. 341 (Mad.) of 1983 is barred by limitation by one day. We have perused the application for condonation of delay and have heard the learned departmental representative, the delay primarily occurred due to pressure of work in the office of the counsel. In view of this, we condone the delay and admit the appeal.3. For the assessment year 1978-79, now under consideration the assessment is made in the status of an 'individual'. This was the status shown while filing the return of income. The returned income shown was Rs. 45,423. While arriving at the aforesaid income which was from fixed deposits, the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 18,857 which represented interest paid to the bank. The ITO did not allow the deduction claimed stating that a simila...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT
Reported in : (1983)6ITD560(Bang.)
1. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether a radiologist who had installed X-ray unit in his clinic would be entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').2. The respondent-assessee is a consulting radiologist. He receives salary from some hospitals as a consultant radiologist. He also receives consultation charges from his own patients. He has set up X-ray unit in his clinic during this year costing Rs. 1,06, 478. From the X-ray unit he has received collections amounting to Rs. 67,476 apart from Rs. 9,600 received as consultation charges during this year.He has a technician who operates the X-ray unit. The assessee claimed investment allowance on the X-ray plant installed by him during this year. The ITO rejected the claim on the ground that the assessee being a professional does not satisfy the conditions laid down in section 32A to qualify for the claim of investment allowance. The assessee appealed to the AAC. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1984)7ITD785(Mad.)
1. This is a departmental appeal arising out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), in the case of Shri Balasubramania Mills Ltd., Uppilipalayam, Coimbatore, for the assessment year 1980-81.2. The ITO charged the assessee to interest under Section 139(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') by holding that there was a short payment of advance tax after ignoring a payment of Rs. 12,99,417 paid by the assessee as an advance tax payment on the ground that it is an ad hoc payment. The order itself does not say why such a conclusion was arrived at. However, it appears that it was the stand of the ITO that the assessee was not bound to file an estimate of advance tax in Form No. 28A under Section 209A of the Act, while it had filed such an estimate in Form No. 29 on 13-6-1979 notwithstanding that the assessee had only suffered loss in earlier years and the last completed assessment for the assessment year 1976-77 was also on a loss. The assessee was under the impression that in such...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (1984)9ITD814(Ahd.)
1. This appeal which relates to the assessment year 1980-81 is filed by the assessee against the order made by the learned Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The assessee is a leading advocate. On examination of the records of the case the learned Commissioner noticed that in computing the total income for the assessment year under appeal the ITO by bis order dated 26-3-1981 had allowed the claim of the assessee for deduction under the first proviso of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act of the actual cost of wall book cabinets aggregating to Rs. 29,668, on the footing that the cost of each unit of the book cabinet was less than Rs. 750. According to the learned Commissioner, the wall book cabinet in respect of which full deduction was allowed was neither a plant nor machinery within the meaning of the said provisions. Therefore, according to the learned Commissioner the ITO's order allowing the claim for deduction as aforesaid was clearly erroneous which...
Tag this Judgment!