Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1993)47ITD638(Kol.)
1. This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of the CIT (A) for the assessment year 1986-87. The only ground raised is as under : For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in allowing capital loss of Rs. 36.43,221 arising out of sale of shares of M/s. Grahmas Trading Co. (I) Ltd. and M/s. Shalimar Works Ltd. (in liquidation) by the assessees.2. The appeal arises this way. During the year, the assessee sold a flat in Bombay and there was a capital gain of Rs. 35,70,661. On 24-12-1985 the assessee sold two lakh equity shares of M/s. Grahmas Trading Co. (I) Ltd. and 10,500 equity shares of M/s. Shalimar Works Ltd. The cost price of these shares (Rs. 10 face value) was Rs. 24,05,332 and Rs. 13,40,514. These shares were held as investments in the assessee's balance-sheet. These shares have been held by the assessee for quite some time. They were sold for Rs. 1 lakh in respect of the shares in M/s. Grahmas Trading Co. (I) Ltd. and for Rs. 2,625 in respect of the shares in M/s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1994)48ITD145(Kol.)
Where assessment is found erroneous in respect of one of the several issues, it cannot be taken to be erroneous in entirety.For the assessment year 1984-85 the assesseee recording company's assessment was completed under section 143(3). Subsequently, the Commissioner initiated proceedings under section 263 on the grounds of (i) incorrect allowance for certain amount as provision for stock, (ii) incorrect allowance of certain amount under `miscellaneous expenses, (iii) non-inclusion of bonus paid to the assessee's dealers, for the purpose of disallowance under section 37(3A) and (iv) wrong allowance of royalty paid by the assessee. On receiving a detailed reply from the assessee, the Commissioner took the view that the assessment had been completed without any enquiry into the various claims of the assessee, and, therefore, set aside the same with the direction to reframe. On appeal, the assessee, while challenging the Commissioner's order on the last two issues, made no grievance agai...
Tag this Judgment!