Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati
Reported in : (1991)38ITD239(Gau.)
1. (The assessee in this appeal has taken up the following effective grounds: (1) For that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Gauhati, failed to consider the question of limitation as per ground No. 1 of the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee that the assessment based on the return submitted on 11-9-1987 was bad in law. (2) For that, inasmuch as the Income-tax return filed on 11-9-1987 has been accepted as a valid return under under Section 139(1), so the assessment made on 7-9-1988 on the basis of the same is barred by limitation. (3) For that an assessment which is already barred by limitation cannot be set aside with a direction to make a fresh assessment (4) For that as the income-tax return filed on 15-3-1988 is neither a subject matter of assessment nor a ground of appeal the same should not be considered as an issue in this appeal.At the time of hearing the assessee's learned counsel did not press ground Nos. 2,4 and 5. At the time of hearing the assessee ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati
Reported in : (1991)37ITD392(Gau.)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by which he has confirmed the order passed by the Assessing officer giving effect to the order and directions passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act 1961 by the Commissioner of Income-tax.2. It may be mentioned here that against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263, the assessee took up the matter in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal by its order dated 29-8-1988 in ITA No. 214(Gau)/86 held that the Commissioner of Income-tax had jurisdiction to exercise his powers under Section 263 on the facts of the case.3. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer pursuant to the directions of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 completed the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 which was taken by the assessee in appeal before the present CIT(A) whose order is the subject-matter of the present appeal before us.4. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati
Reported in : (1991)37ITD112(Gau.)
1. In these appeals, the assessee has raised similar grounds of appeal.It is the appeal by the assessee that the assessments made by the assessing officer and as confirmed by the DCWT(A) was not justified as the same was bad in law and on facts. It is submitted that the authorities concerned should have accepted the claim of the assessee for freezing the value of the property at Shillong under Section 1(4) of the Act. It is also the appeal by the assessee that the benefit under Section 1(4) should be allowed for freezing the value for the year under consideration on the basis of the value determined for 31-3 -1971 and that the assessee had not submitted and accepted the valuation as determined by the department.2. We have heard both the sides at length and we have gone through the orders of the authorities below for our consideration. In the assessment order, it is seen that there is a property at Police Bazar, Shillong (residence) which value was shown at Rs. 1,85,000. The value was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati
Reported in : (1991)36ITD431(Gau.)
1. The appeals are by the assessee raising identical points. The appeals are directed against the consolidated order of the Commissioner of Income-tax as passed under Section 263 of the I.T. Act for the assessment years 1984-85 to 1986-87. Briefly speaking the facts of the case were as under.2. Forassessment year 1984-85, theassessee was assessedas aregistered firm which had filed the return showing a loss of Rs. 2,69,920. Hearing was made and assessment was completed under Section 143(3). The assessing officer mentioned that the firm carried on the business in manufacture and sale of tiles and was mainly engaged in the execution of contracts given by the Karnataka Power Corporation. He noted that the main work related to embankment and concretes. The assessee inter alia claimed investment allowance which was disposed of separately by the ITO, who started computation on the basis of the net loss as per profit and loss account, to which he added certain inadmissible expenses. The Asses...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati
Reported in : (1991)36ITD554(Gau.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee. The first two grounds are not pressed at the time of hearing. Hence, these are not considered.2. The next ground of appeal is that the AAC erred in stating that the original assessment order merged in the order of the AAC passed earlier, when the original assessment order was set aside and, accordingly, the order of the present AAC impugned may be reversed. It is the contention of the assessee that the WTO may be directed to allow the claim contained in the letter dated 28-4-1984.3. We have heard both the sides at length and we have gone through the orders of the authorities below and also the orders passed in the original proceeding. The assessee has also placed some paper-book for our consideration. After hearing both the sides, it is seen that the WTO passed order on 19-3-1986 under Section 16(5) read with Section 23, i.e., to give effect to the order of the earlier AAC who has set aside the assessment order passed originally. In the fresh orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati
Reported in : (1990)35ITD331(Gau.)
1. The appeals are by the revenue which are directed against the orders of the DCIT(A) by which he has deleted the income added in the assessment in respect of the capital gains on the sale of certain properties. The assessee, on the other hand, has filed cross objections to support the orders of the CIT(A) and also in order to attack the separate orders of the DCIT(A) on other points. Since the facts of the cases and the issues involved are identical and interlinked, we consolidate the appeals for disposal by this common order.2. The facts as noted by the authorities below are that the firm M/s.T. Khanderao & Sons, Shimoga, purchased a vacant plot of land on 24-11-1970. To avoid the provisions of Karnataka VacantLands in Urban Area (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1975, the partners of the firm effected a partition of the vacant land amongst themselves after obtaining permission from the Government in 1982. A registered deed dated 11-8-1982 was effected to convey the shares of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati
Reported in : (1990)35ITD597(Gau.)
1. The appeal is by the revenue against the decision of the CIT(A) who directed the GTO not to subject the value of the gift under the provisions of Section 4(1)(b) of the Gift-tax Act holding that the value of the property was exempt under Section 5(1)(xiv). It is also appeal by the revenue that the CIT(A) should have appreciated that the fair market value of the property was much more than the amount credited in the accounts of the assessee in the capital of the firm while forming the partnership. There are other issues also which have been taken up by the revenue in the present appeal.2. Briefly speaking, the GTO in the assessment order noted that the assessee filed a nil return of gift. He found that the assessee owned a site in Kumarapark East, Bangalore, which was valued at Rs. 4,50,000 by an approved valuer and the same was offered by the assessee in the wealth-tax return from the assessment year 1979-80 onwards. The assessment year for the gift-tax assessment which is presentl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati
Reported in : (1991)36ITD84(Gau.)
1. The assessee has filed separate applications for stay of demand. It is pointed out that for the first year Rs. 68,696 remained to be paid.It is pointed out that the assessee seriously disputed the tax and had no liquid funds available for payment and it is also stated that security of immovable property in the form of land and building belonging to the firm and the partners may be pledged as security if required. For assessment year 1982-83, the amount outstanding has been shown at Rs. 2,42,487 and in a similar situation, it is submitted that the entire demand was disputed seriously and the assessee had no liquid fund for payment. Similarly, it is submitted that land and properties may be pledged as security, if required.2. We have heard both the sides and we have gone through the orders of the authorities below for our consideration. It is vehemently urged on behalf of the assessee that the Appellate Tribunal has disposed of the connected appeals for the above two years and being ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati
Reported in : (1990)35ITD590(Gau.)
1. The appeal is by the assessee contending that the CIT(A) erred in holding that the notice of demand not signed by the ITO, is valid notice under Section 292B and that the CIT(A) had relied on a decision which was not relevant to the instant case, 2. Briefly speaking for the assessment year 1975-76, the assessing officer initiated proceedings under Section 147 and notice under Section 148 was issued. Notice was served and the return was filed. The ITO fixed the case for hearing under Section 142(2) and made the assessment ultimately under Section 143(3) read with Section 147(b).The income was computed as per assessment order at Rs. 3,13,800. The assessee was assessed as registered firm with three partners. After considering the firm's tax, the balance of the income was distributed to the partners in their respective shares.3. Thereafter, the assessee alongwith other grounds of appeal contended before the CIT(A) that the notice of demand accompanying the order of assessment was not s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati
Reported in : (1990)34ITD316(Gau.)
1. The appeals are by the assessee which are directed against the consolidated orders of the CWT(A) by which he has sustained the penalty imposed under Section 18(1)(c) of the W.T. Act for the above years and under Section 1.8(1) (a) for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85.2. We shall first take up the appeal for the assessment year 1979-80.The WTO noted that the assessee in her wealth-tax return did not disclose certain house properties at Shillong and certain properties at Cantonment area. The assessee disclosed the ownership of land at Cantonment area but the value was shown at Nil. According to the assessee, the land in the Cantonment area was a leasehold land under the cantonment authority, i.e., Defence Department and that there was a stipulation by the defence authority that they may require the land at any time and the assessee has to release the same without compensation.One property is located at Jaiaw which the WTO found that the assessee had not disclosed the same on ...
Tag this Judgment!