Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1983)3ITD768(Hyd.)
1. The facts and the rival contentions in these two appeals by the different assessees are common. For the sake of convenience, both the appeals are disposed of together.2. Shri Premchand and Shri Sardarilal, both the assessees herein, are sons of Shri Chaganlal and constituted a HUF (which will hereinafter, if necessary, be referred to as 'bigger HUF') until they executed a deed of partition on 17-11-1969 whereby the two branches represented by them separated and constituted smaller HUF's (hereinafter referred to as "'HUF's" only) comprising of : (7) Shri Premchand (self), Smt.Sushilabai (wife), Shri Narsing Prasad and Shri Poonamchand (sons), (2) Shri Sardarilal (self), Smt. Jankibai (wife) and Shri Parsuram (son).The aforesaid HUF's have also undergone complete partition as per the deed of partition dated 27-10-1970. The partition has been not only between the father and son/sons but also with the wives inasmuch as they have also received their share in the HUF property at the time...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1982)1ITD539(Mum.)
1. The appeal which is filed by the revenue and the cross-objection which is moved by the assessee relate to the assessment year 1975-76.As both this appeal as well as the cross-objection are inter-connected, they are disposed of by this combined order for the sake of convenience. The assessee is a charitable trust. The first contention raised by the revenue in its appeal is in regard to the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to allow depreciation of Rs. 84,882 on the assets owned by the assessee. The assessee-trust owned jeeps, machinery, etc., the written down value of which worked out to Rs. 8,48,822. It claimed depreciation at the rate of 10 per cent on an ad hoc basis against the income earned by it. The claim of the assessee was that the income for the purpose of considering the question of deduction as required under Section 11(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") should be determined on commercial principles which would take into consideration the depreciation admiss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Reported in : (1982)1ITD556(All.)
1. By this appeal, the assessee challenges the validity of the order under Section 263(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") passed by the Commissioner in respect of the assessment year 1976-77, holding that the assessment order under Section 143(1) of the Act dated 19-12-1977 made by the ITO, Sultanpur, was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.2. The relevant facts bearing on the controversy may be noted : The assessee was the karta of the HUF and was a partner representing his family in Haribhanjan Lal Someshwar Prasad, Sultanpur, up to the assessment year 1975-76. On 1-4-1976, a partial partition amongst the members of the HUF with regard to the investment of the family in the aforesaid firm was effected and the various members of the assessee's family, consisting of himself, his wife and his son were allotted the following shares in the original capital of the family in the said firm :Shri Keshav Shukla 35,898.97Smt. Kalindi Shukla 35,898.97Shri Anil Kumar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1983)3ITD693(Delhi)
1. WT Appeal Nos. 614 to 624 filed by the assessee and WT Appeal Nos.703 to 711 filed by the department pertain to the assessment years 1964-65 to 1974-75 and 1960-61 to 1974-75 respectively. The main point in these appeals for the assessment years 1964-65 to 1974-75 pertains to the valuation of a property situated at 3, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi, for wealth-tax purposes. At the time of hearing of these appeals before the Division Bench of the Tribunal, an additional ground was raised to the effect that Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules should be applied in valuing the said property. The contention was that this rule is a rule relating to procedure and would apply to all pending proceedings, including appeal proceedings and even though the WTO had obtained the valuation of property from the Valuation Officer under Section 16A, the provisions of Rule 1BB would override such valuation.Since there was difference of opinion, on the point raised in the appeals on the additional ground of ap...
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 Mumbai
Reported in : (1984)7ITD666(Mum.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 21-12-1979 of the Commissioner (Appeals). The assessee is a limited company deriving income from business as a dealer in cotton yarn, silk yarn, soapstone powder, etc. Besides, the assessee also deals in shares and earns income by way of Mukadami Commission. The assessment year involved in this appeal is 1976-77 with the year ended 31-3-1976 as the relevant previous year.2. The only ground taken in this appeal is that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not allowing a sum of Rs. 7,541 being the liability for gratuity which accrued for the previous year under consideration, as computed on actuarial basis. Before the ITO, the assessee claimed to deduct a sum of Rs. 27,330 as gratuity liability computed on actuarial basis while computing the income from its business. No provision for the said amount was made in the acounts but the claim for deduction was made in the course of assessment proceedings. The ITO observed th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Reported in : (1983)3ITD338(All.)
1. The sole controversy in the present case is whether an addition of Rs. 37,500 to the assessee's returned wealth was justified on the ground that the assessee had earned interest to that extent. The assessee held a fixed deposit receipt of Rs. 8,50,000 against which he had obtained an overdraft of Rs. 6,40,000 from the said bank. Out of it Rs. 3,50,000 were given on loan by him to one Shri P.N. Singh. He derived an income of Rs. 26,250 from him by way of interest, which went to increase the wealth of the assessee correspondingly. The balance amount of loan was kept by the assessee either with himself at home without lending it to anybody or was given over by him to his son without interest. No income, whatsoever, was, admittedly, actually earned on the aforesaid amounts. In the income-tax assessment, the interest paid by the assessee to the bank on such amounts as were kept idle at home or were given to the son without realising any interest from him, were not allowed as legitimate ...
Tag this Judgment!