Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (1982)1ITD760(JP.)
1. These three appeals by the assessee involving common contentions are, therefore, disposed of by a common order. The assessment years involved are 1977-78 to 1979-80. The facts briefly stated are that the assessee returned the value of an immovable property held by the assessee at Rs. 71,900, for the assessment year 1977-78 and at Rs. 72,000 each for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80. The assessee, however, failed to claim exemption under Section 5(1)0'v) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ("the Act"), which grants exemption to one house or a part of the house belonging to the assessee, subject to maximum value of Rs. 1 lakh. The WTO made the assessment accordingly.Subsequently, the assessee moved an application under Section 35 of the Act stating that non-allowance of deduction of one residential house up to the value of Rs. 1 lakh by the WTO was a mistake apparent from record and, therefore, the same should be rectified and necessary deductions allowed. The WTO rejected the claim ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (1982)1ITD672(JP.)
1. These five appeals by the revenue relating to the consecutive assessment years 1970-71 to 1974-75 arising out of the combined order of the Commissioner (Appeals) involve common contentions and are disposed of by a common order.2 & 3. [Paras 2 and 3 are not printed here as they involve only minor issues.] 4. The last ground of appeal which is only for the assessment year 1972-73 is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that it would be reasonable to adopt the value of "Woodland" flat, Bombay, at Rs. 2,66,000 for the assessment year 1971-72. This property was purchased by the assessee on 1-6-1970 for Rs. 2,28,000. The Commissioner (Appeals) has fixed the value of this property as on 31-3-1971 relevant to the assessment year 1971-72 at Rs. 2,66,000. This value was as per the report of the departmental valuer. For the assessment year 1972-73, the WTO has adopted its value at Rs. 2,87,000 on the basis of the report of the Variation Officer. On appeal, the Commissioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (1982)1ITD709(JP.)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Appellate Controller in respect of the estate of late Smt. Shantidevi passing on her death.2. The first ground of appeal is general in nature and, therefore, calls for no consideration.3. In the second, third and fourth grounds of appeal, the value of the house property being plot No. 4, Industrial Area, Sriganganagar, has been disputed. The deceased owned the above property. The accountable person showed the value of the above property in the statement of accounts at Rs. 1,98,000. The Assistant Controller adopted the value of this property at Rs. 2,96,000 on the basis of the report of the Valuation Officer to whom reference was made by the Controller. After considering the objections of the accountable person, the Appellate Controller has reduced the value of this property to Rs. 2,76,000. The assessee is aggrieved against the above valuation placed by the learned Appellate Controller. It has been submitted before us...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (1982)1ITD678(JP.)
1. Involving very interesting facts, these appeals are filed by the revenue for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). The assessee has filed cross-objections for both the years. Both the appeal and the cross-objections can be conveniently decided together and they are, therefore, consolidated.The assessee, inter alia, owns a house property at Chandigarh, income from which was assessed by the ITO in the original assessments framed on 28-10-1976 and 25-8-1977 for the years under appeal, respectively.Unexplained investment in the construction in both the years was not examined by the ITO at the stage of the original assessments. For both the years, the ITO observed at the stage of the original assessments that the investment in the property was not examined, as the construction was not complete during the period relevant to the assessment years in question. He already observed in both the assessment orders that the investment in the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (1982)1ITD241(JP.)
1. In this appeal filed by the assessee relating to the assessment year 1977-78, the controversy revolves round the interpretation of Section 4(1)(a)(v) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ("the Act"). The assessee claims to have made a gift of jewellery worth Rs. 22,043 to her daughter-in-law, Smt. Manju Garg, on the date of latter's marriage, but before Saptapathi took place. The contention of the assessee was that Smt. Manju Garg was not her daughter-in-law or the son's wife within the meaning of Sub-clause (v) of Section 4(1)(a) at the time of gift, and, therefore, the said provisions are not attracted to her case. The case was that betrothal ceremony also took place on the same day, when the marriage was celebrated and that gift was made at the time of betrothal ceremony which preceded the marriage. The WTO negatived the case of the assessee and he held that betrothal ceremony was in continuity of the marriage and that the gift was made at the time of marriage. Gift having been made at t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (1982)2ITD86(JP.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee, a Government undertaking, relating to the assessment year 1976-77 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The said Government undertaking was constituted for the purpose of building and maintaining godowns and warehouses in the State of Rajasthan with a view to provide facilities for storage of agricultural produce. Besides this activity, the assessee undertook the work of procurement of grains on behalf of the State Government and the Food Corporation of India ('the FCP) and derived income from such activity also during the year under appeal. The assessee also derived income from interest, supervision charges, fumigation service charges and miscellaneous items. From perusal of the profit and loss account (see page 21 of the annual report and statement of accounts of the assessee, pertaining to the assessment year 1975-76, included on page 23 of the paper book), it appears that the assessee derived the following incomes during the year ...
Tag this Judgment!