Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: income tax appellate tribunal itat mumbai Page 200 of about 2,049 results (0.140 seconds)

May 24 1982 (TRI)

income-tax Officer Vs. Sippy Films

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in : (1982)1ITD1031(Mum.)

1. This appeal has come up for hearing before a Special Bench, in view of the following question referred to by the President: Whether an assessee who fails to object to an addition or disallowance made in a draft order under Section 144B, loses his rights to agitate against the said addition or disallowance in an appeal filed under Section 246 The above question was obviously referred in view of the conflicting views expressed by different Benches of the Tribunal.2. So far as the question for consideration before the Special Bench is concerned, the facts relevant to the same are very limited and it may be stated now. The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on business of distribution, production and exhibition of films. It filed a return of income on 27-11-1976. A draft assessment order was served on the assessee on 30-3-1979 under Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). Since there was variation in the income returned and the income proposed to be assessed by more ...

Tag this Judgment!

May 21 1982 (TRI)

Trac Sales Corporation Vs. Fourth Income-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in : (1983)3ITD62(Mum.)

1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 25-4-1980 of the Commissioner (Appeals), relating to the assessment year 1976-77, the previous year of which ended on 30-6-1975.2. The assessee is a partnership firm which started its business, for the first time, during the previous year under consideration, as distributors and selling agents of various products. The assessee was constituted by a partnership deed dated 27-9-1974. The assessee took up the selling agency of Trac Industries and Components Ltd. ('Trac Industries'), Madras, with effect from 4-10-1974. During the previous year under consideration, the assessee earned a commission of Rs. 1,36,231 under the selling agency agreement. After debiting overhead expenses, an income Rs. 1,04,947 was returned by the assessee on 17-12-1976. This return was based on the books of account, which were duly closed on 30-6-1975, following the mercantile basis of accounting.Subsequently, on 26-7-1977, the assessee filed a...

Tag this Judgment!

May 17 1982 (TRI)

K.G. Jethwani Vs. Second Additional Income-tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in : (1984)7ITD649(Mum.)

1. The assessee has preferred this appeal against the order dated 24-9-1980 of the Commissioner, passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), who set aside the assessment made by the ITO and thereby directed him to pass a fresh order determining the amount as laid down in clauses (i), (ii), (iia) and (iii) of Sub-section (5) of Section 132 of the Act and to retain the assets seized to the extent that they were sufficient to satisfy the aggregate of the amount referred to in Section 132(5)(ii), (iia) and (iii).2. The relevant facts in brief are that in a search of the assessee's premises at Khar on 11-7-1978, diamonds of the value of Rs. 50,750 was seized along with other jewellery valued at Rs. 36,504. In the proceedings under Section 132(5), the ITO considered the evidence and heard the assessee's representative and came to a conclusion that no undisclosed income was involved in the possession of the diamonds and jewellery and, therefore, no tax attached to the a...

Tag this Judgment!

May 13 1982 (TRI)

First Income-tax Officer Vs. Gasper Gonzalves James Trust

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in : (1982)2ITD63(Mum.)

1. The appeal has been filed by the revenue on a short ground. The assessee filed a cross-objection challenging the assessment regarding capital gains on a broader issue. Before we deal with the appeal, it may be necessary in this case to deal with the cross-objection in the first instance as we will presently show that the same has to be dismissed in Hmine.2. The cross-objection has been filed 245 days late. The assessee came forward with an explanation for the long delay. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee as also the learned departmental representative on the question of limitation, in filing the cross-objection. We are not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee. The question whether the assessee is liable to tax on capital gains was the basic question involved in the assessment which was the subject-matter of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). On this question the Commissioner (Appeals) negatived the assessee's plea, though on another aspect th...

Tag this Judgment!

May 12 1982 (TRI)

Herdillia Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in : (1982)2ITD623(Mum.)

6. The second and last ground in the assessee's appeal is against the non-allowance of development rebate on cleavage condenser and refrigerator condenser, the respective cost of which was Rs. 7,58,466 and Rs. 69,918. There is no dispute that these two machineries were not actually put into use before 1-6-1975. Observing that by a Notification dated 28-5-1971 the grant of development rebate was discontinued in respect of the plants installed after 31-5-1974 and that the provisions for the grant of development rebate in some exceptional cases in terms of Section 16 of the Finance Act, 1974, were also not applicable in this case, the ITO disallowed the assessee's claim for development rebate. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dealt with this issue in paragraph 7 of his order. He has observed that on carefully going through the reasons recorded by the IAC, he fully agreed with the department's stand in this behalf.7. It is stated before us by Sri Dastur, the learned counsel for the asses-se...

Tag this Judgment!

May 12 1982 (TRI)

Megji Mathardas (Huf) Vs. First Wealth-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in : (1982)1ITD904(Mum.)

1. These five appeals by the assessee, a HUF, relate to its assessments for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1969-70.2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the assessee-HUF owned certain immovable properties in Bombay. The value of these properties was shown at Rs. 3,50,000 for the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68. The same was shown at Rs. 8,03,000 for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 on the basis of a valuation report given by K.G.Kapadia & Co., Government approved valuer. In the light of the report, the value shown for the earlier years in the original returns filed by the assessee, was suitably enhanced for the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-08 to Rs. 4,78,000, Rs. 6,00,000 and Rs. 7,34,000, respectively, by filing the revised returns. The WTO after going through the valuation report submitted by the assessee, accepted the valuation of the immovable properties as shown by the assessee for all the five years under consideration.3. Subsequ...

Tag this Judgment!

May 10 1982 (TRI)

income-Tax Officer Vs. Rookman'S (P.) Ltd.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in : (1982)2ITD78(Mum.)

1. This is an appeal by the revenue. The first ground of appeal relates to relief under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), given by the Commissioner (Appeals) on a part of commission paid to directors. The ITO disallowed a part of the commission under Section 40(c) of the Act and, accordingly, he restricted the allowance under Section 35B also to that amount. The Commissioner (Appeals), on the other hand, took the view that the assessee is entitled to the claim under Section 35B in respect of entire commission paid to the directors.2. It is argued by the learned departmental representative that once disallowance is made under Section 40(c) relating to the commission paid to the directors, a claim under Section 35B must be confined to that amount and not to the entire amount claimed by the assessee as expenditure incurred by it. The argument proceeds on the basis that when the Legislature has restricted the allowance of expenditure in a particular manner, the same sta...

Tag this Judgment!

May 04 1982 (TRI)

income-tax Officer Vs. Kamla Knitting Works Ltd.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in : (1982)1ITD1108(Mum.)

1. This appeal has been filed by the department against the order dated 10-4-1981 of the Commissioner (Appeals), relating to the assessment year 1976-77 the previous year of which ended on 30-9-1975.2. The assessee is a company established in the year ended 30-9-1968 for the manufacture and sale of knitted clothes. It did not claim relief under Section 80J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), during the first assessment year, namely, 1969-70, because the capital employed by the assessee out of its own funds during that year was a negative figure. In the second assessment year 1970-71 also, the assessee did not claim relief under Section 80J for the same reason. In the subsequent three assessment years, namely, 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74, the capital employed by it became positive, so that it was entitled to relief under Section 80J at a certain percentage of such capital. Even so, the assessee did not claim relief under Section 80J during these three years, because the gross tot...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 30 1982 (TRI)

Garware Synthetics (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in : (1982)2ITD176(Mum.)

1. In this appeal, the assessee objects to the confirmation by the Commissioner (Appeals) of a disallowance of Rs. 20,287 out of the general charges, restriction of relief under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') to only 50 per cent of the salary of the staff engaged in the export business and confirmation of a disallowance of Rs. 1,89,540, paid as bonus, made by the ITO.2. We first deal with the ground relating to the rejection of the assessee's claim under bonus. The assessee entered into an agreement with its workmen on 29-4-1974. According to this agreement, the assessee was to pay bonus, up to 20 per cent of the wages, for the financial years 1972-73 to 1975-76. According to the assessee, 20 per cent of the wages paid to the permanent, daily-rated and monthly-rated workmen came to Rs. 1,89,540, in respect of the financial year 1975-76, relevant to the assessment year 1976-77. When it filed a return on 8-10-1976, it did not claim this amount as a liability. Howeve...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 30 1982 (TRI)

income-Tax Officer Vs. Venilal'S Export House (P.) Ltd.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in : (1982)2ITD552(Mum.)

1. The assessee-respondent is a private limited company. It was formed in November 1971 with six brothers as shareholders. Each of the brothers had 310 shares at the time of formation of the company. The business of the company consisted of mainly export of silk sarees and textiles and manufacture of special type of yarn. During the year 1974, the company started construction of a new textile processing division at Surat which was completed by the end of 1975. It appears that in the beginning of 1975 disputes between the brothers arose. There was practically a deadlock in the management and running of the business. A family friend was asked to arbitrate amongst the brothers and settle the disputes. It was decided by the arbitrator that four brothers, viz., S/Shri Mahesh, Dilip, Kirit and Satish, should go out of the company and dispose of the shares to the family members of the other two brothers, viz., S/Shri Kishore and Anil. In turn they were to take two divisions of the company. T...

Tag this Judgment!


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