Kolkata Court October 1984 Judgments
income-tax Officer Vs. Binani Bros. (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-30-1984
Reported in: (1985)12ITD311(Kol.)
1. Both the appeals, one preferred by the department and the other filed by the assessee, are heard together and disposed of by this common order. In the departmental appeal, the following grounds have been taken by the department : (1.) That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred both on facts and in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,50,472 is not a taxable receipt. (2.) That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in interpreting the High Court's order awarding interest of Rs. 1,52,470. (3.) That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not been justified in directing the ITO to allow interest under Section 214, in consequence of the relief given by him.2. The assessee is a private limited company. The assessee filed its return on 10-7-1978, showing the income of Rs. 2,95,682. The revised return was filed on 5-8-1978, in which the income of Rs. 1,46,632 was shown. The assessee, while filing the revised return, claimed that a sum of Rs. 1,52, 470 received from Hindustan C...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Pramila Devi Jayaswal Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-27-1984
Reported in: (1985)11ITD614(Kol.)
1. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all these appeals are common. They were, therefore, heard together and are disposed of by a combined order for the sake of convenience.2. The short controversy raised in these appeals is in regard to the interpretation of Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 ('the Rules'), and whether while working out the value of the shares in terms of Rule 1D, i.e., in accordance with break-up value method, taxation liability not provided for in the accounts by the company, should also be taken into consideration and treated as debt on the valuation date.3. The assessee held 540 shares, inter alia, of S.S. Jaiswal (P.) Ltd. The valuation date of the assessee is 31st March of every year. The company, viz., S.S. Jaiswal (P.) Ltd., in which the assessee held the aforementioned number of shares, also closes its accounts on the 31st March every year. In respect of the valuation dates 31-3-1973 and 31-3-1974, the assessee's valuer worked out the value o...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Mritunjay Mukherjee
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-27-1984
Reported in: (1985)11ITD626(Kol.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the department against the order, dated 22-7-1982, of the AAC relating to the assessment year 1980-81, the previous year of which ended on 31-3-1979.2 to 7. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.] 8. Coming to the merits of the case, Shri S.K. Lahiri urged that the learned AAC erred in his decision and so his order deserved to be set aside and that of the ITO deserved to be restored. The, assessee. is an individual deriving income from property and share of profit from the business styled Dinbazar Foreign Liquor (off) Shop, at Jalpaiguri, which deals in foreign liquor. It is important to note that the firm was engaged in the purchase and sale of foreign liquor. The wife of the assessee was also a partner in the same firm. The ITO invoked the provisions of Section 64(1)(i)of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), and included the share income of the wife of the assessee from the said firm in the total income of the assessee.9....
Tag this Judgment!Duncan Bros. and Co. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-16-1984
Reported in: (1985)12ITD144(Kol.)
1. The first two appeals are by one assessee, and the other two appeals are by two different assessees in which a common point is involved and the facts are similar. Of course in the case of the first assessee, namely, Duncan Brothers & Co. Ltd., additional points are also pressed for consideration. The learned counsels of both the sides have addressed us in one set. Accordingly, we consolidate the appeals for disposal by this common order.2. We shall take up the case of Duncan Brothers. The appeal by the assessee is that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have cancelled the assessment as barred by limitation for the assessment year 1978-79. It is also the appeal of the assessee that the assessment was otherwise bad in law and void, as no necessary opportunity demanded by the assessee under Section 129 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), was given before the completion of the assessment.3. Briefly speaking, the ITO completed the assessment of the assessee under Section 143(3),...
Tag this Judgment!Keshablal Hansraj Patel Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-10-1984
Reported in: (1985)12ITD665(Kol.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 28-8-1982 of the AAC, relating to the assessment year 1977-78.2. The assessee is an individual. The subject-matter of this appeal relates to the assessment of the assessee's wealth under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act').3. The only ground taken in this appeal states that the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Act should have been allowed on the authority of the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. A. Mukherjee & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 718.4. The assessee is a partner of a firm, styled, Balharsah Timber Depot, whose business activities consisted of purchasing logs and converting them with the help of sawing machines, planks and sized boards as per the specifications of its clients. The case of the assessee was that the firm was engaged in the processing of goods and so it came under the Explanation to Section 5(1)(xxxii), so that it becomes entitle...
Tag this Judgment!income Tax Officer Vs. S.P. Jain
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-09-1984
Reported in: (1985)13ITD288(Kol.)
1. The assessee in this case was an individual deriving income from salary, interest on security, house property, dividend, etc. During the relevant assessment, a sum of Rs. 10,80,000 was included as the assessee's income from undisclosed sources being the amount which was invested by the assessee benami in the name of Shri Kalyan J.B. Rana for the purchase of shares of Rohtas Industries Ltd. and S.K.G. Sugar Ltd., the two companies of the Sahu Jain Group. Since the sources of the purchase could not be explained, it was held that the amount had been invested by the assessee benami in the name of Shri Rana and this view was ultimately upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.The ITO, therefore, initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of this income under Section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ('the Act,). In response to the show-cause notice, one of the legal representative of the assessee who had died, contended that the question of assessment of the said amount was stil...
Tag this Judgment!Pappa Rao Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-09-1984
Reported in: 2(1986)ACC116
Anil K. Sen, J.1. This revisional application is directed against the appellate order dated July 19, 1983 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 1982, By the order impugned the learned Sessions Judge has affirmed an order dated October 5, 1982 of conviction under Section 304A and Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Mayabundar in G.R. Case No. 276 of 1978. The accused is the petitioner before us in this revisional application.2. According to the prosecution, the accused petitioner while driving a motor truck on July 12, 1978 at 10,30 A.M. ran over a boy named Tannis Dung Dung aged about 9 years at Bijdera on his way, from Panchbati to Rangat. The boy died instantaneously. Such death according to the prosecution was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on the same day and on completion of investigation the police dr...
Tag this Judgment!Pappa Rao Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-08-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ546
Anil K. Sen, J.1. This revisional application is directed against the appellate order dated July 19, 1983 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 1982. By the order impugned the learned Sessions Judge has affirmed an order dated October 5, 1982 of conviction under Section 304A and Section 279 ' of the I.P.C. passed by the learned Judicial Magiatrate, Ist Class, Mayabundar in G. R. Case No. 276 of 1978. The accused is the petitioner before us in this revisional application.2. According to the prosecution, the accused petitioner while driving a motor truck on July 12, 1978 at 10.30 A.M. ran over a boy named Tannis Dung Dung aged about 4 years at Bijdera on his way from Panchbati to Rangat. The boy died instantaneously. Such death according to the prosecution was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on the same day and on completion of investigation the police drew up the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›