Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1984)10ITD240(Mum.)
1. All the appeals except the last two are by the department. The common point in dispute in all these appeals relates to the allowability of certain amounts claimed by the assessee under the head 'Sales Promotion Expenses' and stated to represent secret commission incurred in connection with its business. Except for the last two assessment years where the appeals of the assessee are before us, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the assessee's claim of secret commission. For the last two years, the claim not being allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee has come up on appeal. For the assessment year 1975-76, the department has challenged four other points and for the assessment year 1976-77, three points. These are dealt with first and the common point relating to the secret commission is dealt with in the later part of this order.2. The assessee sold a flat during the year along with a garage at Hill Park. Long-term capital gains of Rs. 1,11,500 were returned. The ITO ref...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1984)10ITD730(Delhi)
1. These nine appeals, though they have been filed against nine separate orders of the AAC, involve a common question. They are, therefore, disposed of by this single order.2. The dispute in these appeals relates to the deemed gift which Shri Abdul Qayumc was alleged to have made to some of his relations. It appears that originally Shri Abdul Qayume was the owner of the properties in dispute which he sold to S/Shri Vishnu Saran Gupta and Shyam Sunder Lal Gupta for Rs. 30,000 by registered sale deed dated 12-2-1963. The same day these vendees emanated to resell the properties to him or his nominee for Rs. 30,000 within three years. They also leased out the said property to the deceased assessee by an other deed executed that very day. The agreement to resell the property was renewed on different dates and lastly on 9-11-1970 with a change in the amount of consideration from Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 45,000. In the year under consideration, different portions of the property were sold to some r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1985)11ITD97(Hyd.)
1. These four appeals--two by the revenue and two by the assessee--arise out of the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment years 1976-77 to 1979-80 in the case of Hotel Emerald (P.) Ltd. of Hyderabad.2. The assessee, which is a company, is engaged in the business of running a hotel. It had claimed relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), and extra depreciation admissible for approved hotels. This claim was declined on the ground that there is no specific approval for these purposes by the Central Government as required under the statute. The first appellate authority found that there was such an approval in the Department of Tourism's letter No.7-TH-1(27)/80, dated 6-1-1981, for two years and not for the other two years. In the departmental appeals, it is contended that such approval was forthcoming only with effect from 13-8-1979 for reliefs other than development rebate and 12-11-1979 for the development rebate, since both these dates fell o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1984)10ITD913(Hyd.)
1. This departmental appeal is directed against the order of the AAC, dated 5-7-1983 and it relates to the assessment year 1980-81. The only question involved in this appeal is whether the compensatory allowance paid by the Royal Bhutan Government to the Government of India servants deputed to Bhutan is entitled to exemption under Section 10(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').2. The facts are few and as far as they are relevant for the disposal of this appeal before us, are as follows. The assessee is an individual and he worked as Senior Deputy Accountant General for a part of accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1980-81, viz., 1-4-1979 to 8-9-1979. There was a bilateral agreement between the Government of India and the Royal Government of Bhutan, where under India, with a view to participate in the development programme of Bhutan, agreed to depute its officers and technical personnel to Bhutan. Admittedly, the deputed Central Government servants would be governed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (1985)LC130Tri(Kol.)kata
1. M/s. Marcandy Prasad Radhakrishna Prasad Pvt. Ltd., 65, Grand Trunk Road (North), Salkia, Howrah, had filed a revision petition being aggrieved from Order No. 412 of 1973 dated the 30th day of November, 1973 passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi. After the coming into existence of the Tribunal the said revision petition stands transferred to the Tribunal under Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962 and is being disposed of as an appeal.2, Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant had imported 404 pcs. M.S. plates ex. s.s. Restock, Rot No. 426/71, Line No.47-valued at Rs. 83,099.7 C.I.F. from Bulgaria and had sought its clearance against Import Licence No. P/D/8541999/T/OR/47/D/31:32 dated the 23rd December, 1970 issued for Prime M.S. plates tested killed quality 5 mm and 6 mm thickness. On examination of the documents produced by the appellant viz., photo copy of the Mills' Test Certificate, the lower authorities had observed that due to lower con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1984)(18)ELT606TriDel
1. The captioned appeal was initially filed as a revision application before the Central Government which, under the provisions of Section 35-P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, has come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before it.2 The dispute in this case is about the dutiability of the product "PVC Compound" manufactured by the appellants prior to 18-6-1977 but cleared on or after 18-6-1977 till 28-6-1977. According to the appellants no duty was leviable in the relevant period while the Department holds the contrary view.3. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that upto the budget of 1977 (the Finance Bill was introduced in the Parliament on 18-6-1977), PVC compound used to be assessed to duty under Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule (CET). With effect from 18-6-1977, the Department brought the product under Item 15-A, CET and the appellants were paying duty accordingly. On 29-6-1977, the Central Gov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1985)14ITD35(Mum.)
1. This is the assessee's appeal preferred against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Though the assessee has raised as many as 22 grounds, in fact there are only three grounds as under: 2. That the assessee challenges the validity and legality of the assessment. 3. Disallowance of surtax liability and the expenses disallowed under Section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').2. The assessee-company manufactures various tungsten carbide products such as tips, dyes, nibs, drill steels, cutters, etc. The assessee-company follows previous year ending 31st December as accounting year.In the profit and loss account for the year under consideration, note 18 is relevant in which it was mentioned that last in first out method (LIFO) was adopted for computing direct cost and that on the basis of method which was used in the earlier years the cost as on 31-12-1975 was Rs. 48,659,804.It was the assessee's contention that because of the rising prices the assessee found it proper t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1985)11ITD327(Delhi)
1. These appeals are by the assessee, pertaining to the assessment years 1977-78 to 1979-80. The point in issue in all the appeals is identical. So all the appeals are being disposed of by a common order.2. The assessee is a private limited company. In the assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80, the IAC imposed penalties of Rs. 11,050, Rs. 6,400 and Rs. 2,750 under Section 272A(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), respectively.3. Being aggrieved with the penalty order, the assessee filed appeals before the Tribunal on 2-6-1981. These appeals were heard and decided by the Tribunal on 6-8-1982, holding that appeals should have been filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals in limine on the ground that such appeals were incompetent. The assessee was served with the Tribunal's order on 13-9-1982. Before the orders were served, the assessee filed appeals before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on 13-8-1982.4. After hearing the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1985)11ITD1(Hyd.)
1. This is a common order in respect of nine appeals--five by Smt. A.V.Rajani Reddy for the assessment years 1977-78 to 1981-82 and four on behalf of Ku. Shanti Priyadarshini Reddy for the assessment years 1978-79 to 1981-82. These appeals are against common orders of the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Both the assessees herein are grand-daughters of Shri A.V. Reddy, who had settled some properties on each of them, among others, by separate but identical trusts for the benefit of the assessees, each assessee being the sole beneficiary under the separate trust meant for her. The benefits for the sole beneficiary in both trusts were spelt out in identical terms in Clauses 18, 20 and 21 of the trust deeds as under: 18. The trustee for the time being may, at his discretion, apply the whole or any portion of the income of the trust fund for the maintenance, education or advancement in life of the beneficiary and shall accumulate all the residue by investing the same in the aforesaid manner. 20....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1984)(18)ELT602TriDel
1. The question for decision in these five appeals is whether in view of the Supreme Court's order dated Nov. 17, 1976 and Dec. 10, 1979 in Civil Appeal Nos. 784-787 and 866 of 1973 and Civil Misc. Petition Nos.214 and 5924-5927 of 1979, parties V.M. Salgaccar and Bros Pvt. Ltd. v.Shri S.B. Patel and Ors. should be granted refund of amount collected as Duty totalling Rs. 1,70,597.44.2. Facts material for decision of these apeals are : that appellants during 1964 and 1965 imported 'Earth Moving Equipment' namely, Michigan Tractor Shovel, Michigan Shovel 125A, Traxacavator Model 977, Michigan Shovel 175A and Michigan Tractor Shovel 175A (hereinafter called 'the goods'). The only and primary function for which the goods were designed is that of machinery used for loading, scrapping, excavating i.e. as Earth Moving Machinery. The goods were inter alia assessed to additional duty (countervailing duty) on the basis that they were liable to Excise duty under T.I. 34 of the Central Excise Tar...
Tag this Judgment!