Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2007)104ITD249Cal
1. this special bench has been constituted under section 255(3) of the income tax act, 1961 by the hon'ble president, i.t.a.t. in the case of m/s. usha martin industries ltd. vide i.t.a. no. 1304 (cal)/2000 for assessment year 1997-98 to consider the following questions: whether, the provisions made for doubtful debts, advances & investments, i.e. for unascertained liabilities, falls within the purview of adjustments under section 115-ja of the income-tax act, 1961 and whether the a.o. was justified to make adjust of rs. l,56,00,000/- in this case in computing the books profits 2. the case was fixed for hearing on 5.5.2006 and on this date the learned a/r of the assessee raised preliminary objection against the question referred for the consideration of the special bench. he contended that the question framed has described the provision made for doubtful debts as unascertained liability. the question is referred with a pre-conceived notion that the provision for doubtful debts, advances and investments is unascertained liability. in such an event, the issue before the special bench would be diluted. the ld. a/r contended that the question may kindly be refrained by expunging the words "unascertained liability". the ld. d.r., on the other hand, has stated that the question has rightly been framed. the special bench referred the matter to the hon'ble president, i.t.a.t for necessary orders. the hon'ble president directed that the entire appeal should be placed for .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2006)105TTJ(Kol.)543
1. this special bench has been constituted under section 255(3) of the it act, 1961 by the hon'ble president, tribunal in the case of m/s usha martin industries ltd. vide ita no. 1304/cal/2000 for asst. yr. 1997-98 to consider the following questions: whether the provisions made for doubtful debts, advances and investments i.e. for unascertained liabilities, falls within the purview of adjustments under section 115ja of the it act, 1961 and whether the ao was justified to make adjustment of rs. 1,56,00,000 in this case in computing the book profits? 2. the case was fixed for hearing on 5th may, 2006 and on this date the learned authorised representative of the assessee raised preliminary objection against the question referred for the consideration of the special bench. he contended that the question framed has described the provision made for doubtful debts as unascertained liability. the question is referred with a preconceived notion that the provision for doubtful debts, advances and investments is unascertained liability. in such an event, the issue before the special bench would be diluted. the learned authorised representative contended that the question may kindly be reframed by expunging the words "unascertained liability".the learned departmental representative, on the other hand, has stated that the question has rightly been framed. the special bench referred the matter to the hon'ble president, tribunal for necessary orders. the hon'ble president directed that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2008)112ITD57(Kol.)
1. this special bench has been constituted under section 255(3) of the income tax act, 1961 by the hon'ble president, i.t.a.t. in the case of m/s. i.t.c. ltd. vide i.t.a. no. 1541 (cal)/2000 for assessment year 1997-98 to consider the following questions: (1) that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the hon'ble cit(a) has erred in deleting addition of rs. 38,64,1091-debited to year's revenue account as value of stores written off by holding that it is for the a.o. to prove that consumable stores had either not been used or individually costed less than rs. 5,0001-ignoring, in the process, the findings in assessment that claim could not be established on record. (2) that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the hon'ble cit(a) has erred in deleting addition of rs. 5,00,000/- on account of building, furniture, fixture & fittings thereby contravening enunciation by the jurisdictional high court to the defect that prohibition against guest house expenses stipulated in section 37(4) is absolute. (3) that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the hon'ble cit(a) has erred in deleting addition of traveling expenses disregarding the specific finding that assessee could no discharge the statutory onus of providing that the entire amount debited as expenses represented revenue expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for purposes of business. (4) that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the hon'ble cit(a) has erred in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1983)6ITD225(Kol.)
1. the assessee is the state bank of india which is established under the state bank of india act, 1955. these appeals are taken together and are disposed of by a common order. the assessment for the assessment year 1972-73 was completed on 25-7-1974. a notice under section 148 of the income-tax act, 1961 ('the act') was issued upon the assessee on 7-3-1977 indicating that the ito had reason to believe, in consequence of information in his possession, that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the assessment year 1972-73. the notice issued under section 148 for initiating proceedings under section 147(b) of the act was served upon the assessee on 10-3-1977. the assessee filed its return showing an income of rs. 14,18,69,048. further, the assessee, in a covering letter, stated that according to the knowledge of the assessee no income has escaped assessment for the year 1972-73.the ito found that the assessee was allowed incorrect relief under section 80m of the act which was discovered in course of audit. the ito having in mind the decision in addl. cit v. cloth traders (p.) ltd. [1974] 97 itr 140 (guj.) rejected the contention of the assessee. the assessee came in appeal before the commissioner (appeals) and contended that the action of the ito under section 147(b) was illegal. the commissioner (appeals) did not accept the argument of the assessee. he observed as follows: the first four grounds of appeal relate to the reopening of the assessment under section .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2001)76ITD120(Kol.)
1. all these appeals are filed by the revenue against the separate orders of the cit(a) dated 10-3-1988 for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. there are common grounds in i.t.a. nos. 1722 and 1723 (cal.) of 1988. those common grounds relate to the deletion of addition of rs. 35,18,000 on account of unexplained loan received from m/s.jethmull bhojraj and interest of rs. 3,38,334 on the said alleged unexplained loan. in i.t.a. no. 1723 (cal.) of 1988 the deletion of addition of rs. 3,60,000 on account of unexplained loan received from m/s. jethmull bhojraj and the interest of rs. 3,81,144 on the said alleged unexplained loan is involved.2. the assessee is an individual and was carrying on business of money-lending. he was also having income from director's remuneration.the assessee filed the returns of income for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. he showed total income of rs. 30,055 and rs. 27,852 for the assessment years under appeal in its returns of income.the ito completed the original assessments under section 143(3) on rs. 37,905 for the assessment year 1974-75 on 30-7-1976 and on rs. 31,989 for the assessment year 1975-76 also on 30-7-1976. the ito held a view that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose whole and true income for the previous years relevant to the assessment years under appeal and, therefore, he issued notices to the assessee under section 148 of the income-tax act. he completed the reassessments under section 147(a) of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2002)83ITD111(Kol.)
1. this appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the cit(a) confirming mostly the additions made in the block assessment completed under sections 143(3)/158bc(c) of the it act, 1961.2. the search and seizure operations took place in the premises of the assessee-company on 22nd jan., 1997 and continued upto 23rd jan.,1997.on the latter date, the search was temporarily concluded. a prohibitory order was passed under section 132(3) on one shri b.p. agarwal (stated by the assesses to be unconnected with the assessee-company) in respect of the sealed premises comprising the office-room of the assessee-company, its filing cabinet and certain computer rooms. it may be mentioned in this connection that on the same dates simultaneous searches were carried out by the department in respect of a number of concerns belonging to the same group.on the same date again, certain documents of the nature of two bunches of loose sheets were found from the office premises of the assessee-company at 3a, ripon street, calcutta-16 and were also seized.it appears that in continuation of further search proceedings carried on 6th march, 1997, a fresh panchnama was issued in the name of the assessee-company and its premises were searched once more, on 8th april, 1997. on this particular date also, the search was temporarily concluded and certain further loose bunches containing complete printout in respect of the assessee-company were seized. from the papers placed on our record, it .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2003)85ITD105(Kol.)
the appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24-11-1995 passed by the commissioner (appeals) for the assessment year 1991-92."1. the commissioner (appeals) erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in treating the business loss claimed as speculation loss on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.2. for that the commissioner (appeals) should have seen that the appellant had only one business of dealing in shares.3. for these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing your petitioners pray that relief may be granted accordingly." the facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed return on 30-12-1991 disclosing a loss of rs. 1,31,043 and it was selected for scrutiny and notice under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. the controversy arises in the case regarding the loss disclosed by the assessee for the purpose of sale of shares amounting to rs. 87,000 being treated as speculation loss in view of the explanation appended to section 73 of the income tax act. the learned commissioner (appeals) was of the opinion that the explanation to section 73 of the act is attracted in the instant case and the loss was regarded as a speculation loss.the learned distinguished counsel for the assessee stated that the commissioner (appeals) relying on the explanation to section 73 of the income tax act, 1961 held that the nature of the business activities attracts section 73 and the company .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2003)79TTJ(Kol.)915
1. the appeals filed by the assesses are directed against the common order dt. 16th dec., 1998, passed by the cit(a) for the asst. yrs.1985-86 and 1986-87.2. the main effective common ground in these cases is that the lower authorities refused to carry forward the business loss of the assessee for the asst. yrs. 1985-86 and 1986-87 for setting off with his business income for subsequent assessment year on the ground that the returns for the said assessment years were filed late.3. the learned counsel for the assessee stated that the lower authorities were not justified in refusing to carry forward the business loss claimed by the assessee. it was further contended that while refusing to carry forward the business loss the ao failed to take note of several judicial decisions to the effect that return of income filed under section 139(4) should be deemed to have been filed under section 139 of the it act and consequently, the business loss determined on the basis of such belated return is required to be carried forward for set off with the business income of the assessee the subsequent assessment year, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the hon'ble calcutta high court in the case of cit v.bangabasi theatre (p) ltd, (1993) 71 taxman 408 (cal) wherein it has categorically been stated by the hon'ble high court that in respect of section 80 r/w sections 139, 72 and 80 of the it act, 1961, for the asst. yr. 1984-85 decision in the case of presidency medical .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2003)86ITD135(Kol.)
this is assessee's appeal against the order, dt. 27th march, 1998, of cit(a)-xv, kolkata, for the asst. yr. 1994-95. the revised grounds of appeal have been tiled by the assessee.the ground taken by the assessee is that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned cit(a) erred in confirming the action of the ao in rejecting the appellant's claim for being allowed deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of it act, 1961, while computing the income chargeable under the head "profits and gains of business or profession for the relevant assessment year, for interest paid by the appellant during the relevant previous year amounting to rs. 8,25,01,104 on loans taken to acquire fixed assets for its existing business operations, where the said sum of interest, being related to the period prior to the putting into use of the said fixed assets, had been capitalised in the books of account of the appellant prepared for the relevant previous year.1. this sum of rs. 8,25,01,104 represents interest on loan taken from financial institutions and banks and capitalized during the relevant accounting year. this amount of interest is capitalized to plant and machinery and capital work-in-progress in respect of triveni tissues divisions and paper packaging and printing divisions of the assessee's company. for the income-tax purpose, the assessee has claimed deduction of rs. 8,25,01,104 a portion of expenditure of rs. 16,13,52,102 not debited to p&l a/c but claimed as allowable under .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2005)95ITD169(Kol.)
the revenue is in appeal against the id. cit (a)'s order dated 20-11-2002 passed in the matter of an assessment made under section 147/143(3) dated 30-3-2001 pertaining to the assessment year 1994-95.various grounds of appeal raised by the revenue revolve around the issue relating to the validity of re-assessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the act by the assessing officer, which were cancelled by the id. cit (a) by holding that the re-opening of assessment by the assessing officer was bad in law as it was based on change of opinion on the same set of facts and law which were in existence at the time of the original assessment.in this case, the assessee had filed return of income on 30-11-1994 for the assessment year under consideration disclosing a total income of rs. 1,71,21,790. the return was duly processed under section 143(1)(a) on a returned income. the case was taken up for scrutiny, and assessment was ultimately made under section 143(3) on 3-3-1997 determining the total income at rs. 3,33,94,470. the total income was subsequently reduced to rs. 1,96,61,037 in pursuance to the id. cit (a)'s order passed in an appeal filed against the original assessment order. in the return of income, the assessee claimed deduction under section 80hhc at rs. 3,54,97,167 as per certificate given by the chartered accountant in form no. 1occac. the assessing officer allowed the deduction under section 80hhc at the same amount as per certificate attached to the return of .....
Tag this Judgment!