Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (1992)42ITD7(JP.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 30-3-1989 of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur for the assessment year 1984-85 passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Late Shri R.K. Golcha, Individual, was the Managing Director of M/s Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate (P.) Ltd. (UMDS for short) from which he derived salary. He also derived share income from M/s Golcha Theatre and had own mining business carried on under the name and style of M/s Kolyath Mines. He died on 27-7-1990 after filing the present appeal before the Tribunal and the present four assessees are his legal representatives. Late Shri R.K. Golcha was reimbursed medical expenses amounting to Rs. 1,51,190 by his company UMDS. This amount was not taxed by the ITO in the assessment order dated 13-1-1987 passed under section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961.3. The learned Commissioner, therefore, being prima facie of the view that the said assessment order was erroneous insofa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (1992)41ITD327(JP.)
1. to 14. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.] 15. The first ground relates to the claim of deduction made by the assessee under Section 35CCA. The facts relevant to this claim are as follows.16. If an assessee incurs any expenditure by way of payment of any sum to an association or institution, which has as its object the undertaking of any programme of rural development, to be used for carrying out any programme of rural development which is approved by the prescribed Authority under Section 35CCA(2), the assessee is to be allowed deduction of the amount of such expenditure incurred during the previous year. The society referred to in Section 35CCA(1) was the society for Integral Development, 2, Church Lane, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as SID) which was granted the necessary approval for the period 13-12-1982 to 12-12-1985 on 17-12-1982, on the basis of its application dated 11-11-1982 for the said purposes. This approval had been granted by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (1992)41ITD349(JP.)
1. The question raised in this appeal, filed by the Department for the assessment year 1982-83, is as to whether on the "comp set Photo Type Setter Computer" the assessee was entitled to depreciation @ 10% under the general entry or at the rate of 20 per cent under item C(3) of sub-Part-III of Part I of Appendix I of the Depreciation Schedule given in the Income-tax Rules, 1962, i.e., "Data processing machines including computers (N.E.S.A.)".2. In the original order, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) had allowed 10% depreciation and in appeal the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) vide his order dated 6-3-1987 set aside the matter to him for verification and allowance of correct depreciation. Again the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, vide his order dated 31-3-1987 held that only 10% depreciation was allowable.The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner noticed that the assessee had claimed exemption of import duty under Notification No. 114-CUS dated 19-6-1980 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (1992)43ITD292(JP.)
1. The assessee is aggrieved of the order dated 30-11-1989 of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Rajasthan-II, Jaipur for the assessment year 1986-87.2. The assessee is a limited company which derives its income from the manufacture and sale of cement (both levy and non-levy cement). Some of the non-levy cement is sold from the site of the works and the remaining through handling agents/depots in several major centres of North and West India. The sale of levy cement is, however, controlled by the Government. In the assessment year in question, the assessee declared to have produced 3, 43, 781.52 MT of cement (1, 31,344 MT being sold under levy and balance of 2, 12, 437 MT as non-levy). Out of the non-levy sales, 29,301.15 MT was sold directly from the works and the balance of 1,83,135 MT was sold through agents/depots. The assessment order gives the figures in the form of a chart. The Assessing Officer observed that the agents had sold an excess amount of 8,320 MT whose...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (1992)43ITD359(JP.)
1. The assessee-flrm carried on the business of execution of contract work for Food Corporation of India at various places. Although it has not come out specifically from the orders of authorities below, it was submitted before us that the work consisted of construction of godowns (or the Food Corporation of India. The only question involved in this appeal filed by the Revenue is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that construction work is also an activity of production and, therefore, it is an Industrial Undertaking within the meaning of Section 32A of the IT Act and, therefore, entitled to investment allowance. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shah Construction Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 188 ITR 537 (Bom.) where it has been held that construction of wells, roads, dams, canals etc. did not amount to production or manufacturing of articles or thing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (1992)41ITD269(JP.)
1. The main objection in this appeal, which goes to the root of the case, is regarding the re-opening of the assessment.2. The learned counsel for the assessee explained that in this case notices under Section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act and under Section 148 read with Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act dated 27-2-1982 were issued simultaneously and were served on the same date on the husband of the assessee. In the firs instance, the learned counsel argued that service of notices on the assessee's husband was not a valid service.However, we do not find merit in this objection because the facts and circumstances show that the assessee accepted it as a valid service and made necessary compliance in response to those notices and hence the service cannot be said to be invalid.3. The next part of the objection is that the ITO has mentioned in para 2 of the assessment order that the wealth-tax assessment for the assessment year 1977-78 was completed on 10-2-1986. The ITO has further mention...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (1992)43ITD225(JP.)
1. In this appeal the assessee has objected to the decision of the lower authorities disallowing depreciation to the assessee firm in this assessment year on the ground that the business of the firm was discontinued this year and, as per the revenue authorities, the business assets of the firm were sold or otherwise transferred to a private limited company.2. The brief facts, as can be gathered from the orders of the authorities below, are that the assessee's previous year usually ended on 31st March. This year on 30-11-1980, the running business of the assessee firm was taken over with effect from 1-12-1980 by a private limited company titled N.M. Nagpal Pvt. Ltd. The three partners acquired equal shares in the new company. The assessee claimed depreciation on the business assets in the computation of income. The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation holding that the assets have to be treated as "sold" as defined in Section "32(2)" which includes transfer by way of exchange also....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (1992)40ITD538(JP.)
1. These four appeals filed by the Department and the four cross objections thereto filed by the assessee, arise out of the consolidated order dated 2-4-1985 passed by the learned AAC, A-Range, Jaipur for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1969-70.2. This matter is coming to the Tribunal again for the 4th or 5th time.The assessee is M/s Mangilal Nandkishore, Beawar, an Unregistered Firm, carrying on raw-wool business by supplying it to Khadi Boards in U.P.and MP. The persons in this URF were Svs. Mangilal Garg (father), Svs.Hari Shankar Garg and Nandkrishore Garg (sons) with profit sharing ratios of 60%, 25% and 15% respectively. We are told that now Shri Hari Shankar Garg is the only one surviving, the other two having died. The aforesaid URF was assessed by the ITO, Ujjain upto the assessment year 1965-66 when assessment was completed in the status of a Registered firm. The case records were purported to be transferred by the ITO, Ujjain to ITO, Beawar under transfer memo No. 1746 date...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (1992)41ITD97(JP.)
1. The assessee is a Registered Firm. It carried on the business of Arhat of potatoes and onions. It had two partners, viz., Shri Kishanchand having 60% share and Smt, Savitri Devi having 40% share in the relevant assessment year. Shri Kishanchand was also a partner in two other firms, viz., M/s. Shobhraj Cold Storage and Ice Factory, Jaipur having 30% share and M/s Jay Anibe Aloo Bhandar, Jaipur having 50% share. The assessee had filed a return of its income on 15-7-1985 and the assessment had been completed on that return under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act. Thereafter on 5-9-1985 searches were conducted under Section 132 of Income-tax Act on the business premises of the firms of this 'group' in Jaipur and Ajmer and also the residential premises of their partners. Proceedings under Section 147/148 were initiated and the assessee firm was assessed on a total income of Rs. 10,89,439 on 28-3-1988. That assessment was, however, annulled by the CIT (Appeals) on 23-1-1989 because n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (1992)40ITD209(JP.)
1. The assessee, inter alia, derives income as salary from M/s. Shashi Properties & Industries Ltd., Bombay in which he is a whole time Director and has been paid salary of Rs. 18,000 for the year ended on 31-3-1986. He derives share income from M/s. Mohatta Builders & Associates, Bombay a firm, and also gets salary from that firm. The dispute before us is whether the assessee is entitled to the standard deductions provided under Section 16(i) of the Income-tax Act in respectof the salaries received from the limited company in which he is a Director and from the firm in which he is a partner. The ITO has mentioned in his order that the assessee had not filed any evidence to establish the relationship of employer and the employee between the so called employers and himself. He has further mentioned that he had not filed a copy of Articles of Association and the terms of his employment by which he could be considered to be an employee of the Company. The ITO also mentioned that ...
Tag this Judgment!