Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: income tax appellate tribunal itat cochin Page 11 of about 502 results (0.390 seconds)

K. Kuriakose Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin

Reported in : (2002)83ITD631(Coch.)

1. These appeals by the assessee pertain to the assessment years 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92 and are directed against the order of the first appellate authority holding that the assessments for these years were reopened within the period stipulated in the Act. The case of the assessee is that the reopening of the assessments was not correct and against law as all the details were made available by the assessee in the returns and secondly the Assessing Officer was not justified in holding that service charges received by the assessee did form part of the rental income for the purpose of valuation of the property as per Schedule III of the Wealth-tax Act.2. The facts leading to these appeals are as follows : For the assessment years 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92, the assessee filed wealth-tax returns on 28-2-1990, 31-8-1990 and 31-8-1992, declaring net wealth of Rs. 31,11,678, Rs. 29,67,334 and Rs. 32,25,680 respectively.The returns were processed under Section 16(3) of the Wealth-tax A...

Misbah Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin

Reported in : (2003)84ITD349(Coch.)

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 30-11-1992 for the assessment year 1988-89 confirming the order of the Assessing Officer with some slight modification.2. The issue raised in this appeal relates to the working of capital gains in respect of an asset sold by the assessee-firm vide sale deeds dated 26-6-1987 and 4-12-1987, which along with their English translations can be seen at pages 67 to 99 of the assessee's paper book, Vol. I. The dispute is as to what exactly is the asset sold, whether it is the entire business of the assessee-firm or only a building owned by it. The case of the assessee is that what is sold is the entire business of the assessee-firm, and that of the Department is that only a building has been sold. Before we express our view in the matter, we may give certain other related facts of the case.3. The assessee-firm came into existence vide a deed dated 15-4-1978 with four partners, who are brothers with equal shares in profit ...

Gift Tax Officer Vs. Smt. P.E. Santha

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin

Reported in : (2002)82ITD793(Coch.)

1. This appeal by the Revenue is for the asst. yr, 1987-88, and is directed against the order of the Dy. CGT(A), cancelling the gift-tax assessment made by the AO holding that the assessee in her capacity as mother has only discharged her legal obligation towards her daughter.The case of the Revenue is that the first appellate authority should have noted that the transaction is exigible to tax under the GT Act since no consideration was passed.2. The assessee filed the return of gift for the asst, yr. 1987-88 in response to the notice under Section 16(1) showing the taxable gift at 'Nil', The AO noted that the assessee, mother of the recipient of the gift, gifted 75 sovereigns of jewellery to her daughter at the time of marriage on 22nd Aug., 1986. It was the case of the assessee that by making the above gift, she has discharged a duty cast on a Hindu female to maintain her daughter and the gift was an item of expenditure incidental to marriage. The assessee relied on the decision of ...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Thirumbadi Rubber Co. Ltd.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin

Reported in : (2002)83ITD420(Coch.)

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A), dt. 29th April, 1993, for the asst. yr. 1990-91. The ground taken by the Revenue reads as under: "The learned CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow the assessee's claim of capital loss of Rs. 7,50,000 on the view that the write off of the loan amounted to a capital loss. The appellate authority ought to have noticed that for allowing as a deduction for income-tax purpose the loss should have arisen on the transfer of a capital asset effected during the year and that in this case the assessee had only written off as irrecoverable a loan advanced during the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1989-90. The CIT(A) ought to have upheld the disallowance of the claim as capital loss as in this case there was no transfer of a capital asset within the meaning of Section 45." 2. The respondent-company advanced some amount to M/s Fort William Co.Ltd., Calcutta and returned the interest received thereon in earlier years under the...

Wealth Tax Officer Vs. Banerji Memorial Club

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin

Reported in : (2002)83ITD1(Coch.)

1. These appeals are directed against the consolidated order of the CWT(A) dt. 31st Dec., 1993, for the asst. yrs. 1983-84 to 1987-88. The common ground raised for all the years in question reads as under: "The learned CWT(A) erred in cancelling the assessment, holding that the assessee is AOP and, therefore, its assets are not chargeable to wealth-tax in view of the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Sreemulam Club (Kerala Law Journal parts 7 & 8 p. 334), dt. 30th April, 1991. The CWT(A) ought to have upheld the assessment following the decision of the Supreme Court in Trustees of Govardhandas Govindram Family Chanty Trust v. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 47 (SC) and the decision of Tribunal Cochin in the assessee's own case for the asst. yr. 1978-79 in WTA No. 76/Coch/85, dt. 9th June, 1988." 2. The issue raised in these appeals is whether the assessee-club is assessable to wealth-tax under the WT Act, 1957 for the asst. yrs.1983-84 to 1987-88. The assessee-club is a society r...

Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Co-operative Sugars Ltd.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin

Reported in : (2003)84ITD237(Coch.)

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 21-1-1994 for the assessment year 1991-92, wherein he allowed the claim of the assessee for the deduction of a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs paid to the Irrigation Department of the State Government of Kerala, as revenue expenditure. The ground taken reads as under : The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 25 lakhs paid by the assessee as contribution to the State Government towards the cost of lining of Moolathara Right Bank Canal on the view that it was revenue expenditure incurred for ensuring the smooth conduct of the business in an efficient and profitable manner. The Appellate Authority ought, to have noticed that the expenses incurred were not for developing any area in the premises owned by the assessee but only as contribution in the work undertaken by Government department to help the cultivators who were under no compulsion-to sell their su...

M.M.J. Plantations Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin

Reported in : (2002)83ITD741(Coch.)

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A), dt. 31st Aug., 1994, for the asst. yr. 1991-92. This appeal was disposed of by the Tribunal earlier vide its order dt. 21st July, 1995 (in ITA No.754/Coch/94). At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions of law were also referred under Section 256(1) of the IT Act for the opinion of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court vide the order of the Tribunal dt. 13th Feb., 1997, in RA No. 294/Coch/1995 : 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law and facts in directing the interest under Section 234B is to be calculated in the status of "Registered firm"? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in setting aside the direction of the CIT(A) to treat the assessee-firm as unregistered firm for the levy of interest under Section 234B, particularly when the Tribunal has upheld the refusal of registration in the assessee's appeal challe...

Mamatha Motels Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin

Reported in : (2003)84ITD582(Coch.)

1. All these appeals were heard together and they are disposed of by this common order. The above appeals, except those by Smt. E.L. Gracy and Shri A. Janardhanan, are directed against the order of the Assessing Officer dated 26-8-1998 under Section 158BC read with Section 158BD of the Income-tax Act, in the case of M/s Mamatha Motels, a partnership firm, for the block period 1-4-1986 to 12-12-1996. Among such 17 appeals, only in two appeals, i.e. those filed by Shri K.V.Ramakrishnan and Shri K.L. George the appellant is described as Mamatha Motels. In the balance 15 appeals, the name of the partner who has filed the appeal is given as the appellant, which is wrong. As the objection is only against the order passed in the case of the firm, the appellant has to be the firm, though it is filed through the partners.Accordingly we have treated the wrong mention of the appellant as a condonable mistake and in all such cases we have taken the appellant as M/s Mamatha Motels. The other two a...

Meenakshy Lucky Centre Vs. Joint Cit

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin

This appeal is directed against the order of the assessing officer dated 28-3-2000, for the block period 1-4-1985 to 19-3-1996, passed under section 143(3) read with section 158BC of the Income Tax Act. The appeal is barred by limitation by five days, but the assessee has, vide its letter dated 12-5-2000, sought for the condonation of the delay.The letter is accompanied by an affidavit by Shri T. Murugan, managing partner of the assessee-firm, dated 12-5-2000, in which it is mentioned that during the relevant period he was hospitalised and so could not contact the concerned auditors in time for filing the appeal. We have perused the affidavit and we hereby condone the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal is admitted.Before us, the appeal has been seriously contested. The learned counsel for the assessee has filed as many as 11 paper books and an argument note running into 22 pages, exclusive of schedules. The learned Departmental Representative has also filed a detailed argument not...

Meenakshy Lucky Centre Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the AO dt. 28th March, 2000, for the block period 1st April, 1985, to 19th March, 1996. passed under Section 143(3) r/w Section 158BC of the IT Act. The appeal is barred by limitation by five days, but the assesses has, vide its letter dt. 12th May, 2000, sought for the condonation of the delay. The letter is accompanied by an affidavit by Shri T. Murugan, managing partner of the assessee-firm, dt. 12th May, 2000, in which it is mentioned that during the relevant period he was hospitalised and so could not contact the concerned auditors in time for filing the appeal.We have perused the affidavit and we hereby condone the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal is admitted.2. Before us, the appeal has been seriously contested. The learned counsel for the assessee has filed as many as 11 paper books and an argument note running into 22 pages, exclusive of schedules. The learned Departmental Representative has also filed a detailed argument ...