Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1993)47ITD43(Kol.)
1. The assessee has filed all the four appeals challenging the common order dated 25-9-1991 of the Income-tax Commissioner (ITC) passed under Section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act for the assessment years 1982-83 to 1985-86. For the sake of convenience all the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of through this single order.2. The facts are that the assessments of the assessee for all the above assessment years were completed on 7-10-1982, 25-4-1984, 24-4-1985 and 15-10-1985 respectively. Thereafter the assessee filed returns under the Amnesty Scheme announced by the CBDT and disclosed the values of gold ornaments and jewellery. Pursuant to this Amnesty returns the Assessing Officer (A.O.) after regularising the returns by issue of notices under Section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act completed the assessments for all the years on 30-3-1990. Thereafter the ITC formed an opinion that the value of the shares held by the assessee in various companies were not correctly valued by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1993)45ITD610(Kol.)
1. The appeals are by the department and the cross objections are by the assessee. Since they were heard together, they are consolidated and disposed of by this common order.2. We are concerned with the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82. In the assessment made originally under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B, the ITO had allowed depreciation of Rs. 16,65,000 and Rs. 14,12,359 respectively in respect of certain non-factory buildings held by the assessee. Subsequently, the ITO invoked the provisions of Section 154 of the IT Act on the ground that the building which was purchased from Satna Cement Works for a consideration of Rs. 37 lakhs had not become the property of the assessee since no registered conveyance deed was executed in favour of the assessee. According to the ITO, under Section 32 of the IT Act, the assessee, in order to become entitled to depreciation in respect of the assets used in its business, should be the 'owner' of the assets. The ITO was of the view that t...
Tag this Judgment!