Kolkata Court February 1985 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
income-tax Officer Vs. Gopalpur Tea Co. Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1985
Reported in: (1985)12ITD259(Kol.)
1. The dispute in this appeal relates to the claim for Rs. 4,07,776, which the assessee had paid to its employees under the head 'Labour welfare and incentive'. The ITO noticed that the assessee actually paid bonus amounting to Rs. 11,63,653. Out of this, Rs. 7,55,877 was paid to the bonus account but the balance amount was paid under the head 'Labour welfare and incentive'. The ITO also went through the allocable surplus, wherein he found that bonus amounting to Rs. 7,55,877 only could have been paid in view of the amendment by the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 1977. Therefore, according to him, the assessee-company could not have paid a single penny over and above this amount and the payment of Rs. 4,07,776 paid by the assessee was not deductible in terms of Section 34 of the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 1977, and Section 36(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). He, therefore, disallowed this claim.2. On appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee relie...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.V. Joshi and Sons
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1985
Reported in: [1986]158ITR71(Cal)
A.K. Sengupta, J. 1. The assessee is a registered-firm. The original assessment of the assessee-firm was completed on October 31, 1962. In the original assessment, the assessee-firm claimed interest of Rs. 34,895 on hundi loans appearing in the books of the assessee. The said interest was allowed while completing the original assessment. Thereafter, materials came into the possession of the Income-tax Officer that the said hundi loans were not genuine and fictitious. Accordingly, the assessment was reopened under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). In response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed a return showing total income of Rs. 99,113 being the income determined in the original assessment as modified on appeal. Before the Income-tax Officer, it was stated by the assessee that the hundi loans were disclosed by the partners of the firm with interest under Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965. However, the Income-tax Officer rejected the c...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.N. Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1985
Reported in: [1986]157ITR82(Cal)
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. 1. The assessee has income from transport business, house property and other sources. For the assessment year 1962-63, the assessee received total bills amounting to Rs. 3,93,545 inclusive of a sum of Rs. 1,09,185 representing cost of materials supplied by the Government for construction of a polytechnic institute at Maldha. As no books of account were maintained by the assessee, the Income-tax Officer proceeded with the computation invoking Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. After including a sum of Rs. 13,027 to the total receipts, he applied a rate of 13.7 per cent. on the total receipts of Rs. 4,06,572 subject to a deduction of depreciation on trucks. Gross income prior to the adjustment of depreciation was arrived at Rs. 55,700. Total income was computed at Rs. 56,549 as against the income returned at Rs. 15,157. 2. Being aggrieved, the matter was taken in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and it was contended on behalf of the assessee th...
Madhu Jayanti (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1985
Reported in: (1985)48CTR(Cal)151
: Ajit K. Sengupta, J. - This reference at the instance of the assessee is under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961.2. The assessment year involved is 1975-76. The assessee was a grower and manufacture of tea, besides exporting the same. Admittedly, the assessee in the original return filed on 30-9-1975 as also in the first revised return filed on 27-5-1976 did not put in any claim for deduction under s. 35B of the Act. In the second return filed on 19-8-1976, the assessee claimed weighted deduction under s. 35B in respect of the following expenditure stated to be export promotion expenses.(1) Air Freight on Parcel for samples.(2) Commission paid to agents to obtain order amount to which paid in foreign countries.(3) Steamer freight on Export Consignments.(4) Premium to export credit guarantee corpn.The ITO allowed weighted deduction in respects of Items 1 and 2 but disallowed the claim of the assessee for weighted deduction in respect of Item Nos. 3 and 4. Such disallowance was made on th...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A. V. Joshi and Sons.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1985
Reported in: (1986)54CTR(Cal)99
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. - The assessee is a registered firm. The original assessment of the assessee firm was completed on 31-10-1962. In the original assessment the assessee firm claimed interest of Rs. 34,895 on hundi loans appearing in the books of the assessee. The said interest was allowed while completing the original assessment. Thereafter materials came into the possession of the ITO that the said hundi loans were not genuine and fictitious. Accordingly the assessment was reopened under s. 147(a) of the IT Act, 1971. In response to the notice under s. 148 of the said Act the assessee filed return showing total income of Rs. 99,113 being the income determined in the original assessment as modified on appeal. Before the ITO it was stated by the assessee that Hundi loans were disclosed by the partners of the firm with its interest under s. 68 of the Finance Act, 1965. However, the ITO, rejected the contention of the assessee and held that since the payment of interest on bogus hundi ...
Orient Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-i
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1985
Reported in: [1985]153ITR404(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. Orient Paper Mills Limited is a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956, and is an assessee under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). In the assessment year 1972-73, the accounting period being the calendar year ending on March 31, 1972, the assessee was assessed to surtax under the said Act. In computing the capital of the assessee for determining the statutory deduction, the assessee had included an amount of Rs. 3,73,080 shown as forfeited dividend in its capital. 2. The ITO held that forfeited dividends did not have the character of reserve as they were in the nature of liabilities and, therefore, excluded the same in computing the capital of the assessee. 3. On appeal, the AAC upheld the assessment following a decision of the Allahabad High Court. On further appeal by the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, following its earlier decision in the case of the assessee for the assessment yea...
Bharat General and Textile Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1985
Reported in: (1986)53CTR(Cal)418,[1985]153ITR747(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee, the following questions, have been referred for the assessment year 1974-75 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,94,776 being cash assistance on exports are liable to be assessed as revenue receipts ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that expenses on freight, loading charges, insurance, etc., incurred in connection with the export business, were not entitled to weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that for the purpose of computing the capital employed for granting deduction under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the value of assets should be taken at the written down value and not at the origi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›