Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2005)1SOT202(Kol.)
in this appeal, the assessee's only grievance is against the order of the learned cit (a) in upholding the assessment order where the partner's salary has been disallowed although the amended deed of partnership was produced before him at the time of rectification under section 154 of the income tax act. the assessing officer although accepted the amended deed of partnership but did not allow the partners' salary.this is a case where the partnership has been constituted right from the beginning i.e., 31-3-1993 between two partners having 50% share of each and both the partners were working partners. according to clause 13 of the deed of partnership, it has been stated that both the partners shall participate in the management and conducting of the business and if so decided, both the partners shall be entitled to draw monthly salary at the rate as will mutually be settled from time to time subject to the provisions of the income tax act. but the assessing officer disallowed the remuneration on the ground that there was no specific mention in the deed about the quantification.the revenue's stand is that in consonance with the provisions of section 40(b) and as per the cbdt circular, salary and remuneration cannot be allowed in this case as because there is no quantification in the deed of partnership. but the assessee's contention is that although up to assessment year 1996-97 there was relaxation by the revenue but the cbdt should relax rigour of law and should not extend it .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2005)92ITD400(Kol.)
1. the present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the ld.cit(a)'s order dated 5th march,2004 in the matter of an assessment made under section 143(3) of the act pertaining to the assessment year 2001 -02.2. grounds no. 1 & 2 are directed against the ld.cit(a)'s order in confirming the a.o. is action in treating the profit of rs. 4,33,588/- arising from share transactions as "speculation profit" instead of short-term capital gains claimed by the assessee.3. the assessee's contention that the assessee had earned a short-term capital gain of rs. 4,33,588/- from sale and purchase of shares, was rejected by the a.o. by discussing and holding as under :- " during the relevant previous year, the assessee showed a short-term capital gain of rs. 4,33,588/- which was set off against brought forward unabsorbed long-term capital loss of rs. 6,69,990/- pertaining to the a.y. 1994-95. the details are as under:---------------------------------------------------------------------------sl. no. name of the company no. of shares period of holding---------------------------------------------------------------------------3. square d software 800 21-8-2000 to 11-9-2000 ltd. (500) & 18-9-2000(300)5. global tele systems 100 18-9-2000 to 25-9-2000--------------------------------------------------------------------------- upon enquiry, it was stated that the said shares were purchased by m/s. nakamichi securities ltd. upon the assessee's instructions and kept in their d-mat account .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2005)92ITD557Cal
1. the revenue is in appeal against the order dated 14.5.2003 passed by the ld.cit(a) for the assessment year 1996-97. the grounds raised by the revenue are as under :- i) that the ld.cit(a) has erred in law and on facts in directing the a.o. to allow deduction under section 80ia before adjustment of brought forward loss. ii) that the appellant prays that the order of ld.cit(a) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the a.o. be restored. the appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary.2. in the course of assessment proceedings, it was stated by the assessee before the a.o. that the deduction under section 80ia should be allowed first, and thereafter, the set off of loss brought forward from earlier years should be allowed. this claim of the assessee was not accepted by the a.o. as the a.o. was of the view that first gross total income is to be computed and thereafter the deduction has to be made. it was further stated by the a.o. that while computing the gross total income, the brought forward losses has to be taken into first, and if there is any remaining profit available then the deduction under section 80ia has to be given. the a.o. had relied on the provisions contained in section 80ab.3. being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.cit(a) which was initially dismissed because of non-compliance.later on, the order dismissing the assessee's appeal was recalled by the ld.cit(a) as he found that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2007)110TTJ(Kol.)152
1. the above appeal filed by the appellant is directed against the order of the cit(a)-xvi, kolkata, dt. 25th sept., 2006 relating to -asst. yr. 2004-05 on the following grounds of appeal: 1. that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and evidences on records the cit(a) erred in upholding the action of the ao in coming to the conclusion that the appellant was not engaged in the manufacture or produce of an article or thing and/or no new article or thing emerged which are distinctive in character or identity and thereby disallowing the claim of the appellant under section 10b of the it act though it was demonstrated with evidence that the appellant was engaged in the business of ornamental fishes which was produced by them and new ornamental fishes with distinctive character and identity was produced. 2. that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the cit(a) erred in holding that the various process adopted by the appellant for the produce of the ornamental fishes amounted to rearing of the fishes and did not involve the process of production of the ornamental fishes, thereby denying the claim of the appellant under section 10b of the it act. 3. that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the cit(a) further erred in coming to the conclusion and holding that the submissions made by the appellant were based on assertions and were not supported by evidences or accounts in spite of the fact of physical verification of the various process adopted .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1982)1ITD654(Kol.)
1. this appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the commissioner (appeals) dated 30-12-1978 relating to the assessment year 1974-75.2. the first issue in this appeal is regarding the sustention of the disallowance of rs. 1,67,586 made by the ito on account of loss due to confiscation of woollen rags by the customs department.3. the factual back-drop relating to this issue is as under : the assessee is a registered firm working under the name and style of international woollen mills, industrial area, ludhiana. it maintains its books of account on mercantile system of accounting and its previous year is the financial year, which for the assessment year under appeal ended on 31-3-1974. during the course of assessment proceedings, the ito found that there was a debit of a sum of rs. 1,67,586 representing the value of rags which were confiscated by the customs authorities during the year. he, therefore, asked the assessee to justify this claim. it was explained by the assessee that the loss was directly related to the business, that it had been incurred during the commercial transactions ordinarily carried on by the assessee, that the assessee had imported rags on genuine belief that they were covered by the import licence issued by the government, that the assessee had claimed the loss because the rags had been confiscated by the collector of customs and that though the order of the collector of customs was not final and the assessee had filed the appeal against .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1983)4ITD360(Kol.)
1. a short but interesting point has been raised in this appeal revolving round the interpretation of sub-section (1a) of section 201 of the income-tax act, 1961 ('the act'), read with section 194a and rule 30, of the income-tax rules, 1962.2. the facts are in a very narrow compass and may be noted. the accounting year of the assessee-company for the assessment year 1979-80 ended on 31-3-1979. on 15-5-1979, its books of account were seized by the department in terms of section 132 of the act. inspection of the said books was granted to the assessee-company on 10-8-1979. the appellant company took extracts from the seized books of account, and copied out accounts from the cash book and ledger and thereafter, finally adjusted its books of account sometime in september 1979 on the basis of the information gathered from the inspection of its seized books of account. the various creditors' accounts were credited with interest in september 1979. tax under section 194a was deducted at the time of making the said credits and such tax deducted at source was paid in the reserve bank of india on 16-10-1979.3. the ito felt that tax should have been deducted from the interest credited to the aforesaid creditors' accounts and paid to the government within two months from the date when the accounts were to be closed, i.e., 31-3-1979, and inasmuch as it had not been done, interest was chargeable from the assessee in terms of sub-section (1a) of section 201, read with rule 30(1)(b)(i)(1).4. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
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. the assessee appealed to the aac and contended that the ito erred in applying the provisions of section 64(1)0") to the facts of the assessee's case. a certificate from the superintendent of excise, jalpaiguri, was produced before him, which reads as below : this is to certify that smt. sudha mukherjee, wife of shri mritunjay mukherjee of dinbazar, jalpaiguri, was granted excise licence no. 1/1977-78 to deal in foreign liquor along with her husband shri mritunjay mukherjee after satisfying the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1985)14ITD313(Kol.)
1. this appeal by the revenue is directed on the ground that the commissioner (appeals) erred in allowing adjustment of the unabsorbed development rebate for the assessment year 1972-73 against the income of the assessment year 1979-80 when the assets were nationalised in 1972-73.2. during the assessment year 1972-73, when the assessee-company was engaged in coal mining business, it had installed new plant and machinery and as a result, it became entitled to development rebate under section 33 of the income-tax act, 1961 ('the act'). the development rebate which was admissible in the assessment year 1972-73 was not allowed by the revenue and the same remained unabsorbed and in the assessment year 1979-80 the assessee-company claimed that the unabsorbed development rebate should be carried forward from the assessment year 1972-73 and should be adjusted with the income for the assessment year 1979-80, now under appeal. meanwhile, the coal mining business of the assessee-company was nationalised by the coal mines (nationalisation) act, 1973, and the assessee, thus, stood stripped of the colliery business though it did not become defunct of extinct. in other words, the assessee-company continued to be in existence and had income from some other sources of income. the assessee's claim for adjustment of unabsorbed development rebate for the assessment year 1972-73 with the income for the year under appeal was negatived by the ito on the ground that on nationalisation of coal .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1986)16ITD687(Kol.)
1. as all these three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the consolidated order dated 28-12-1984 passed by the commissioner (appeals), give rise to common issues, they were heard together and for the sake of convenience, are being disposed of by this single order.2. the assessee is an individual. the assessment years involved are 1972-73 to 1974-75. the assessee along with others owned properties in the district of mymensingh in east pakistan which is now in bangladesh.her share in these properties was one-third. the assessee had migrated from east pakistan long ago. at the relevant valuation dates, she was a resident and citizen of india. in 1965, the aforesaid properties vested in the custody of enemy property, pakistan and later on, the same vested in the government of bangladesh. the assessee had filed a claim before the custodian of enemy property for india claiming a compensation of rs. 5,07,11,800. the assessee's one-third share came to rs. 1,69,03,933. on this basis the wto for the three assessment years under appeal added the sum of rs. 1,69,03,933 in the net wealth of the assessee as the value of her one-third share in bangladesh properties.3. the matter was carried in appeal before the commissioner (appeals) who held that the ownership of the properties stood terminated and nothing was receivable by the assessee. it was further observed by the commissioner (appeals) that nobody would have prepared to purchase her title and interest in bangladesh .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1986)19ITD275(Kol.)
1. these five appeals filed by the same assessee raise a common point for decision. hence, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. the assessee, imperial chemical industries ltd., london, is a nonresident company having its head office in the united kingdom. in these appeals we are concerned with the assessment years 1968-69 to 1972-73, both inclusive. the assessee follows the year ended 31st march as its previous year in respect of dividend income and the year ended 31st december as its previous year for other income. the other income returned by the assessee comprised of interest, royalty and technical fees assessable under the head 'income from other sources'.3. the assessments for the five years under consideration were completed under section 143(3) of the income-tax act, 1961 ('the act') on different dates on the basis of the returns filed by the assessee.subsequently, these assessments were reopened under section 147(a) of the act on the ground that certain incomes chargeable to tax had escaped assessment due to the omission of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for its assessments.the assessing officer found from the file of fertiliser and chemicals travancore, an indian company (fact) that the said fact had entered into an agreement on 24-4-1965 with power gas corporation of united kingdom (a non-resident company pgc). under this agreement pgc was to render certain services to .....
Tag this Judgment!