Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1986)15ITD574(Kol.)
1. wealth consisting of house properties at middleton row and camac street has been assessed to wealth-tax by the wto for the assessment years 1970-71 to 1976-77 in the hands of smt. manjusree biswas, legal representative to the trustees to the estate of late jitendra nath mookerjee. validity of these assessment orders were challenged in appeal before the commissioner (appeals) who by consolidated order dated 21-9-1983 for all these seven years cancelled the assessments.the department is, therefore, in appeal for all these seven years which we propose to dispose of by this common order.2. for proper appreciation of the controversy these relevant facts need notice. late j.n. mookerjee left a will dated 14-2-1938. he died on 3-10-1939. the legatees of the said will were his widow smt. prova mookerjee, son robindra nath mookerjee, daughter smt. shephali chatterjee and pre-deceased daughter maduri's son shri amarendra nath.smt. prova mookerjee, shri robindra nath mookerjee and shri birendra nath mookerjee were appointed executors and trustees of the said will.after death of shri j.n. mookerjee, the will was probated and in terms thereof smt. prova mookerjee, shri robendra nath mookerjee and shri birendra nath mookerjee were appointed as executors of the estate of late j.n. mookerjee. thereafter, the executors purchased the two house properties in question from the assets of late j.n. mookerjee. a family arrangement was arrived at between the legatees of the will, viz., smt.prova .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1987)23ITD406(Kol.)
1.these three appeals filed by the department relate to the same assessee. hence, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. the first common ground for all the appeals states that the commissioner (appeals) erred in holding that the preoperative project expenses formed a part of the capital employed for the purpose of relief under section 80j of the income-tax act, 1961 ('the act'). shri s.p. chaliha, the learned representative for the department, urged before us that the commissioner (appeals) was not justified in his decision. he stated that the expenses under consideration were deductible in a phased manner under section 35d of the act. hence, he urged that these expenses were in the nature of preliminary expenses envisaged in section 35d and so they did not form a part of the capital employed. he relied on the decision in the case of modella woollens ltd. v. cit [1979] 120 itr 726 (bom.). shri s.c.majumdar, the learned representative for the assessee, on the other hand, supported the order of the commissioner (appeals). he stated that the expenses under consideration were not preliminary expenses as they were not incurred prior to the incorporation of the assessee-company. these expenses were incurred after the company came into being. they were expenses incurred in the course of setting up of the business. these expenses brought into existence a valuable asset which is reflected in the assets side of the balance sheet. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1986)18ITD151(Kol.)
1. of the claim made by the assessee-company in the assessment year 1977-78 (previous year ending on 31-3-1977) under the head 'sales promotion' the ito disallowed rs. 78,918, being in his opinion, in the nature of entertainment expenditure. on appeal, the assessee restricted the claim under that head to rs. 33,848. the commissioner (appeals) held that out of the said amount of rs. 33,848, rs. 5,000 should be treated as entertainment expenses and the balance of rs. 28,848 should be treated as sales promotion expenses. he, thus, allowed the deduction of rs. 33,848 as business expenditure under section 37 of the income-tax act, 1961 ('the act'). aggrieved by that order, the department is in appeal to the extent of rs. 28,848 allowed as sales promotion expenses.2. the assessee was engaged in arranging package tour of foreign tourists. they were taken to different places of interest in the country and at the end of the tour get together was arranged with the tourists for exchange of views between them and the management of the assessee-company. therein the tourists were served with drinks and food. besides the items of drinks and food the expenditure was also incurred on shamianas and light, etc.3. contention of the learned departmental representative is that the entire amount was. spent on entertainment of the tourists and, therefore, deduction of it should not have been allowed. we could not get advantage of hearing the assessee since none appeared for it.4. in view of .....
Tag this Judgment!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. shalimar works ltd. the long-term capital loss came to rs. 36,43,221. the loss was set off against the capital gains in the return. the ito did not accept the claim. he summoned the broker to whom the shares were sold under section 131 of the act and examined him as well as his books of account. he noticed that 75,000 shares of m/s. grahmas trading co. (i) ltd. had been sold by the broker on 7-5-1987 for a profit of 3 paise per share and shares of m/s.shalimar works ltd. were still lying with .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2001)77ITD245(Kol.)
1. this is a departmental appeal against the order of the commissioner oflncomc-tax (appeals) passed on 9-12-1994. the facts of the case are rather somewhat peculiar.2. the assessing officer passed thy assessment order under section 143(3) of the income-tax act, 1961 for this year on 27-3-1989 (this order will henceforth be called the first assessment order). the cit(a) decided the appeal against this order along with another appeal for the assessment year 1986-87 by his common order dated 4-1-1990 (this c1t(a) and his order will henceforth be called the first c1t(a) and the first clt(a)'s order). in the said order the first cit(a) set aside certain issues and remitted the same back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh examination after the cit(a) himself having taken certain positive decisions with regard to the issues raised before him. the order passed by the assessing officer in giving effect to the first order of the cit{a), as mentioned above, dealt with the issues remitted lo him in certain manners. this order was again appealed against by the assessee and the cit(a) passed a fresh order on 23-3-1992 (this cit(a) and his order in this regard will henceforth be called as the second cit(a) and the order of the second cit(a) respectively). thereafter, the assessing officer passed a fresh order under section 143(3), read with section 250 on 22-3-1993 (this order of the assessing officer will be called henceforth ihe third order passed by the assessing officer .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1984)10ITD272(Kol.)
1. the assessee is one of the partners in the firm nainsukhdas jainarain holding one-third share therein. the controversy involved in the present appeals concerns with the determination of the value of his share in the said firm. the said firm owns, inter alia, certain shares, the book value of which in respect of the various valuation dates was as follows : 2. the total value of all the assets of the firm on the respective valuation dates was as follows : year balance sheets of the respective years rs. rs. as against the above value of the assets, the capital of the partners as far as can be seen from the balance sheets in question was as follows, remaining amount being borrowings :assessment total capital of borrowings total year the partners rs. rs. rs. rs.1977-78 12,99,431 6,97,166 19,96,5971978-79 11,58,214 8,87,515 20,46,0191979-80 13,41,380 11,29,306 24,70,686 3. the wto computed the value of the assessee's share on the basis of his capital investment in the firm plus the proportionate difference in the book value of certain assets including shares and the market value of the said assets. he did not grant to the assessee any relief in respect of the exempted assets in terms of section 5 of the wealth-tax act, 1957 ('the act') either while computing the net wealth of the firm or while computing his own net wealth. while doing so, the wto made the following observations : although the assets of the firm includes value of house property and of shares but no deduction .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1986)81ITD181(Kol.)
1. the assessee, the hon'ble mr. justice a.m. bhattacharjee, was the judge of the sikkim high court during the accounting period from 1-4-1979 to 31-3-1980 relevant to the assessment year 1980-81 and he is still judge of the said high court. he has a residential house in siliguri in the district of darjeeling, west bengal. besides income of rs. 1,000 from other sources and that of rs. 1,452 from house property his income from salary as per return filed by him in the sum of rs. 43,500 has been assessed to income-tax by the ito, special ward, siliguri. he in the original return showed his status as 'resident' and 'ordinarily resident'. however, a second return was filed by him in which he claimed his status as 'non-resident'. his objection has been that his income from salary as a judge of the sikkim high court was not taxable. his objection concurrently failed before the ito and in appeal before the aac. hence, this second appeal.2. arguments of the learned counsel for the assessee in support of the objection taken by him are as under : (1) sikkim was acceded to india with effect from 26-4-1975 as a result of which article 371f was inserted in the constitution by the constitution (36th amendment) act, 1975. clause (n) of the said article reads as under : (n) the president may, by public notification, extend with such restrictions or modifications as he thinks fit to the state of sikkim any enactment which is in force in a state in india at the date of notification ; the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1986)19ITD596(Kol.)
1. by these appeals the department challenges the consolidated order dated 30-7-1984 by which the commissioner (appeals) allowed deduction of interest on the amount of rs. 1,31,000 at the rate of 12 per cent under section 24(1 )(vi) of the income-tax act, 1961 ('the act')- the appeals are opposed by the assessee.2. the facts necessary for determination of these appeals are as follows according to the assessee's own representation in its letter dated 3-1-1983 : during the year ended rathjathra 1956 the company purchased house property at 10 sarat chatterjee avenue, calcutta from jute exporters ltd. at rs. 2,45,000 and the said sum of rs. 2,45,000 was paid to jute exporters ltd. on 22-6-1955 out of borrowings of rs. 1,00,000 made from general produce co. ltd. on different dates, as per copy of account already submitted and of rs. 1,50,000 from model mfg. co. ltd. on 27-6-1955. subsequently, on 29-9-1955 the company repaid the loan of rs. 1,00,000 received from general produce co. ltd. out of refund of loan of rs. 1,00,000 received from tulsidas kanoria & co. to whom the company had advanced money on loan in earlier years out of borrowings and/or the capital and reserves of the company. loan of rs. 1,50,000 taken from model mfg. co. ltd. was also repaid during the above year out of funds received from the following sources : (i) loan taken from shri a.k. kanoria 20,100 (ii) sale proceeds of shares which were purchased earlier out of borrowed funds 83,500(iii) net repayment .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1987)21ITD91(Kol.)
1. this appeal filed by the department is directed against the order dated 25-4-1985 passed toy the aac. that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned appellate assistant commissioner erred in directing the income-tax officer to allow the deduction of the interest amount of rs. 29,195 from the business income of the assesses.3. though the facts giving rise to this appeal lie in a narrow compass, the issue involved is of considerable importance. the assessee is an individual. the assessment year involved is 1981-82 for which the relevant accounting year ended on 2037 ram navami. the assessee is a partner in the firm east india transport agency. the said firm changed its accounting year from ram navami to 30th june as a result of which there was no assessment of the firm for the assessment year 1981-82.the assessee accordingly had no share income from the firm and for the assessment year under consideration the assessee has not, therefore, shown any income from the .firm. however, before the ito, the assessee claimed that interest to the tune of us. 29,195 paid by him on capital borrowed for investment in the firm should be allowed to be set off against the income from speculation. the ito was of the opinion that since there was no income from the firm this year, there was no justification for allowance of interest paid by the assessee on the money borrowed for making capital investment in the firm. he accordingly disallowed the assessee's claim for .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1993)44ITD158(Kol.)
1. the revenue has filed ita nos. 1751 to 1753 (cal.)/89 and the assessee has filed cross objection nos. 113-115 (cal.)/89. as they involve determination of a common controversy the appeals and the cross objections were heard together and are being disposed of through this common order for the sake of convenience.2. the sole controversy in these revenue's appeals are that the appellate commissioner was not justified in holding that the assessing officer cannot withdraw the interest allowed by him under section 244(1a) of the act which was granted to the assessee-company while passing orders giving effect to the appellate orders.3. the grievance of the assessee-company in the cross objections is that the appellate commissioner did not possess power to reduce or withdraw the interest granted under section 244(1a) of the act while giving effect to the direction of the appellate authority. another grievance which has been made out by the assessee in the cross objection is that the appellate commissioner erred in mentioning that it was the assessee's contention that, if necessary, the assessing officer could modify/refuse the amount of interest already paid under section 244(1a) by rectifying his order under which such interest was granted.4. in order to appreciate and decide the controversies/grievances involved in the revenue's appeals as well as in the cross objections filed by the assessee few facts required to be narrated. they are as under : 5. while passing orders giving .....
Tag this Judgment!