Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: income tax appellate tribunal itat madras Year: 1992 Page 1 of about 5 results (0.035 seconds)

Jun 15 1992 (TRI)

inspecting Assistant Vs. Ramanathapuram Dist. Co-op.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras

Decided on : Jun-15-1992

Reported in : (1992)42ITD415(Mad.)

1. these three departmental appeals and the cross-objection by the assessee were heard together and are disposed of by a common order.2. the assessee is a co-operative society. it is engaged in the business of printingbooks, registers and forms, which are used by municipalities and town panchayats. at the time of the hearing the assessee had produced before us a compilation containing the price lists (as on 1-6-1991) of the books, registers and forms printed by it as well as model printed forms. from the above compilation it is clear that the assessee was printing- - books, such as service books, bill books, measurement books, order books, cash books and the like; - registers, such as revision petition registers, registers of appeals, professional tax demand registers, water meter reading registers, mutation registers and the like; - licence books, such as vehicle licence books licence for elephants, camel, asses, dogs and the like; and - forms, such as property tax assessment list, establishment bills, forms for ta bills, bills for contingent charges, dcb statement, annual account, budget estimate etc.obviously the policy of the state government in this regard was that municipalities, town panchayats and such like establishments must place their indents for books, registers and forms on the assessee-society.the price lists referred to above, besides indicating the rates at which the various items could be obtained, indicate the packing and forwarding charges, sales-tax and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 17 1992 (TRI)

Amber Electrical Conductors (P.) Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras

Decided on : Feb-17-1992

Reported in : (1992)43ITD313(Mad.)

1. this appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12-9-1990 of the cit (appeals)-v, madras, relating to the assessment year 1989-90.2. in its return of income for the assessment year 1989-90, the assessee had disclosed total income of rs. 20,88,350. the assessee had computed its total income at the said figure, after claiming deduction in a sum of rs. 6,52,550 under section 32ab of the act. it is a matter of record that along with the return of income the assessee had submitted, inter alia, two receipts for idbi deposits.as may be seen from the 'adjustment explanatory sheet' dated 8-3-1990, while computing the tax payable by the assessee, the assessing officer had disallowed the assessee's claim under section 32ab of the act, because audit report in form no. 3aa contemplated by section 32ab read with rule 5ab of the income-tax rules, 1962, had not been filed along with the return.3. thereupon the assessee filed before the assessing officer a rectification petition under section 154 of the act. in the said application, the assessee had sought rectification of tax computation on more than one count. of relevance to the purpose on hand is the fact that according to the assessee the adjustment made by the assessing officer in the said sum of rs. 6,52,550 was a mistake apparent from record. the assessing officer dismissed the rectification petition on this issue, though he allowed the petition on some other issue. the appellant's counsel has stated that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 14 1992 (TRI)

R.K. Swamy Advertising Vs. Inspecting Assistant

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras

Decided on : Sep-14-1992

Reported in : (1993)44ITD99(Mad.)

1. since these appeals relate to a claim of deduction based on a transaction considered for both assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87, they are disposed of by a common order.2. the assessee is a private limited company carrying on the business of advertising and market research. in the accounts of the previous year ended 30-6-1984, corresponding to the assessment year 1985-86, the assessee had claimed deduction of a payment of rs. 34,31,000 being advance licence fee of rs. 33,84,000 and current licence fee of rs. 47,000. the assessing officer was of the view that the entire transaction was a sham, it had been back-dated and, therefore, the expenditure had not actually accrued in the previous year, it was also to be disallowed under section 40(c) and under section 40a(5), it was in any event a capital expenditure and could not also be allowed as a deduction because the transaction was not carried out for the purpose of the business of the assessee. on appeal the cit (appeals) upheld the disallowance on the ground that it was a sham and was back-dated but did not agree that the disallowance could be made either under section 40(c) or under section 40a(5) or as a capital expenditure.3. for the next assessment year 1986-87, the assessee made a consequential claim on the ground that if the transaction were to be accepted as having taken place in the next year the deduction should be given in computing the income of that year. the assessing officer rejected this claim for the same .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 02 1992 (TRI)

income-tax Officer Vs. Mrs. Marry Joseph

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras

Decided on : Mar-02-1992

Reported in : (1992)41ITD307(Mad.)

1. this departmental appeal is directed against the order dated 7-4-1987 of the cit (a), coimbatore, relating to the assessment year 1983-84.2. this case, the facts of which lie in a narrow compass, gives rise to an interesting question of law. one s.a. pereira, the father of the assessee before us, died leaving a will dated 11-7-1979. the operative portions of the said will is extracted below : i leave and bequeath all the movable properties in the residence (no. 224, 'chitra', puliyakulam, coimbatore) to my wife, subject to the condition that she shall have only a life interest in them with no power to encumber or mortgage in any manner whatsoever. on her death or on her remarriage all the properties mentioned herein shall revert absolutely to my daughter. i leave and bequeath all the securities, shares, and money in the bank or elsewhere to my daughter. i have two businesses, 1. colombo saree works, 180, big bazaar street, coimbatore, and 2. colombo saree works, broadway, ernakulam, kerala state. all the machines, furniture, electrical installations, stock in trade and other movable properties with assets and liabilities therein of the first business i bequeath to my daughter and second to my wife. regarding my house property at quilon in survey no. 11005 in uliyakoil village, quilon taluk, quilon district, kerala state, i bequeath the same to my daughter. the income or sale proceeds of the said property have to be utilised for the education and marriage of my grand .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 26 1992 (TRI)

Ranga Structurals Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras

Decided on : Jun-26-1992

Reported in : (1993)44ITD154(Mad.)

1. these appeals relate to the assessment year 1985-86 corresponding to the previous year 31-12-1984. the assessee had filed a return declaring a loss of rs. 13,84,588. the ito made an assessment determining the income at rs. 53,82,060. this was due to an addition of rs. 55,76,631 as profit under section 41(1) and disallowance of bad debt of rs. 44,75,400. on appeal the commissioner (a) remitted the matter to the ito with respect to the addition under section 41(1) for further consideration and allowed the deduction of bad debt to the extent of rs. 15,74,150. the assessee is in appeal in respect of the assessment under section 41(1) and the disallowance of the other bad debt. while the revenue is in appeal against the allowance of one bad debt.2. with reference to the assessment under section 41(1) the brief facts are that the assessee had run up an overdraft account to the extent of rs. 1,04,15,022 (wrongly stated as 1,04,12,317 in the assessment order). after negotiations an agreement was entered into in 1983 by which the assessee paid into account a sum of rs. 50,00,000 in full and final settlement and the bank released all the securities credited in favour of the bank. consequently a sum of rs. 55,76,731 (wrongly shown as rs. 54,12,317 in the assessment order) was waived by the bank. in the ledger of the assessee as on 31-3-1984 the assessee apportioned 50 per cent of the amount towards capital reserve account and the balance towards profit and loss account and .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //