Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1987)20ITD351(Kol.)
1. these two appeals filed by the assessee are heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. the assessee is a limited company. it follows the calendar year as its previous year. for the assessment year 1978-79 assessment was made under section 144 of the income-tax act, 1961 ('the act') on 12-1-1981 for non-filing of the return. this assessment was cancelled under section 146 of the act on 18-3-1981. thereafter, the return was filed on 20-4-1982 disclosing a loss of rs. 1,25,760. the ito made the assessment determining the business loss at rs. 71,244 and depreciation at rs. 21,518. the ito, thus, determined the total loss for the year at rs. 92,762 which was the sum of the aforesaid two figures. the ito states that the return filed on 20-4-1982 was beyond the period of two years prescribed under section 139(4)(b)(iii) and so it was not a valid return under section 139 of the act. consequently, the ito recorded in the assessment order that the assessee was not entitled to carry forward the loss computed by him.3. the assessee appealed to the commissioner (appeals) and contended that the loss of rs. 92,762 determined by the ito should have been allowed to be carried forward. the commissioner (appeals) did not agree on the ground that the loss computed by the ito was not entitled to be carried forward in view of section 80 of the act which says that no loss which has not been determined in accordance with a return filed under section 139 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1988)27ITD406(Kol.)
1. this appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the cit (appeals) dated 5-3-1986 for the assessment year 1983-84 for which the previous year ended on 31-3-1988, 2. according to the ito, during the relevant previous year the assessee had exported plant and machinery amounting to rs. 46,32,372 to indonesia in order to meet its commitment towards subscribing shares of m/s p.t. ispat indo, against such export of plant and machinery the assessee had received a sum of rs. 3,81,602 by way of subsidy and cash assistance from government of india and the said receipt was not reflected in the profit and loss account as the same was treated by the assessee as being a capital reserve. the ito was of the opinion that export always connoted carrying of business activities. he referred to the commentary of kanga and palkhivala, according to which export incentives and sale proceeds of import entitlements were business income. accordingly, the ito held that the export subsidy and cash assistance received against export under equity share capital participation constituted a revenue receipt. in that view of the matter, he added rs. 3,81,602 in the total income of the assessee.3. on appeal, the assessee submitted that it did not carry on any export business in plant and machinery, that the cost appeared in the balance sheet by way of investment in equity shares in the indonesian company and that any sum received by the assessee in respect of such investment was a capital receipt .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1991)38ITD354(Kol.)
1. the assessee is a non-resident company engaged in the business of operation of ships. the assessee declared freight earnings at rs. 18,21,23,117 and total receipts from detention/demurrage on containers at rs. 31,63,688. the assessing officer took 7.5 per cent of the total freight earnings as the taxable profits of the assessee-company. to this extent there is no dispute between the parties. the assessing officer further took the entire receipts of rs. 31,63,688 from detention/demurrage as income of the assessee and therefrom allowed deduction of 5 per cent as expenses on estimate basis. thus, out of total receipts from detention/demurrage of rs 31,63,688, rs. 30,05,504 was taken as income of the assessee. this was challenged by the assessee-company in appeal before the c.i.t. (appeals). it was contended by the assessee before the c.i.t. (appeals) that the detention/demurrage charges were part and parcel of the carriage of goods within the meaning of section 44b and, therefore, the assessing officer should not have taxed the entire detention/demurrage charges which were received by the assessee-company but should have taxed only 7.5 per cent thereof. such stand of the assessee found favour with the c.i.t. (appeals). he, therefore, directed that like freight only 7.5 per cent of the detention/demurrage charges should be treated as profits of the business of operation of ships.2. aggrieved by the said order of the c.i.t.(appeals), the department is in appeal. the assessee .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1994)49ITD114(Kol.)
1. this appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the dy.cgt(a).2. the assessee is an individual. in terms of the letter addressed to the gto dated 9-1-1981, the assessee gifted 58 nos. debenture and 58 nos. ordinary shares of mookerjee estates (p.) ltd. @ rs. 1,000 each totaling rs. 1,16,000 to his two daughters chaya ghosal and subha debi.advance-tax payable under section 18 of the gift-tax act was tendered into the reserve bank of india, calcutta on 28-1-1981. the assessee filed the gift-tax return on 26-7-1983. the assessing officer completed the assessment on a total taxable gift of rs. 1,28,574. the net tax payable thereon after deducting the tax already paid was determined at rs. 2,264. for the default in the filing of the return, the assessing officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 17(1)(a) of the g.t. act. rejecting the explanation offered, the assessing officer levied penalty @ 2% of the assessed tax of rs. 17,964 for a default of 24 months.3. aggrieved by the said order, the assessee took up the matter in appeal before the dy. cgt(a) and it was claimed that the assessee should have been given rebate of advance-tax under section 18 of the act and on that basis the assessee was not liable to penalty under section 17 of the act. even if the rebate was not given, it was submitted that the benefit of tax paid amounting to rs. 15,700 should have been given credit while working out the penalty under section 17(1)(a) of the act. it was further .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1996)59ITD609(Kol.)
1. in this appeal filed by the assessee, the following grounds were raised before us : "1. that the appellant having correctly returned the value of the immovable property at 155a, a. j. c. bose road, calcutta at rs. 2,02,038 on the basis of capitalisation of net maintainable rent as per the mandatory provisions of rule 3 of schedule iii of the act and the assessing officer having duly accepted the said valuation, there was no valid reason or cause for the learned commissioner of wealth-tax (appeals) to enhance the value of rs. 48,00,000 (rupees forty-eight lakhs) or at all. 2. that on a proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and of the principles of law involved it must be held that the learned commissioner of wealth-tax (appeals) misdirected himself in holding that the provisions of rule 8 and/or rule 20 of schedule iii were applicable for valuation of the aforementioned property. 3. that the order for enhancement of the total wealth is bad in law for having been made without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant and/or other infirmities in the appellate order." 2. we are concerned with the assessment year 1989-90. the short point in dispute before us is as to whether the cwt (a) is justified in applying rule 20 of schedule iii of the wealth-tax act. the assessee has filed his return of wealth wherein the value of the immovable property was declared at rs. 2,02,038 on the basis of rent capitalisation method by applying rule 3 of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1998)65ITD11(Kol.)
this appeal arises against the block assessment made by the assistant commissioner of income-tax, consequent to the search conducted on 8-8-1985.1. vide ground no. 1, assessee contends that the assessing officer is not correct including rs. 64,636 as undisclosed income of the assessment year 1992-93 ld. counsel submitted before us that the income-tax return for the assessment year 1992-93 was belatedly filed on 14-2-1995 which was not taken into consideration. on the other hand, the ld. departmental representative submitted that the return of income for that year was not filed in time and so the income declared in the return was correctly treated as undisclosed income.2. we have carefully considered the rival submissions, sub-section (6) of section 158b defines 'undisclosed income'. it essentially includes income 'which has not been or would not have been disclosed for the purposes of this act'. in the instant case, assessee has filed acknowledgement of filing the return of income for the assessment year 1992-93. by the return so filed, assessee showed total income of rs. 64,636 and claimed refund of tax of rs. 1,455 and in the covering letter he mentioned the reason for not filing the return in time. thus, it cannot be said that the assessee would not have shown the aforesaid income but for the search operations. in fact, the return was filed much earlier to the date of search. the basis, upon which the aforesaid income is treated as undisclosed income, is not spelt out in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2002)80ITD210(Kol.)
1. this is an appeal by the revenue against the order of the cit(a) for assessment year 1995-96. the following grounds are raised in this appeal : 1. that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. cit(a) erred in fact as well in law in directing to accept the method of valuation of stock adopted by the assessee company in its computation of total income, when the said method of valuation is different from the method of valuation of stock as adopted in preparing its final accounts which shall only be considered as the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee company within the meaning of section 145 of the income-tax act, 1961. 2. that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. cit(a) erred in fact as well in law in allowing loss to the extent of rs. 61,91,923 (10,19,32,104 - 9,57,40,181) claimed by the assessee erroneously adopting a method of valuation of stock for the income tax purpose which is different from that employed in preparing its final accounts.2. on verification of the return, the assessing officer found that the assessee has claimed a loss of rs. 60,06,290 on account of stock valuation which was the difference in the value of stock shown in the balance sheet at cost (rs. 10,19,32,104) and the value on the basis of the market rate or cost whichever is lower (rs. 9,57,40,181). he found that no such claim was made in earlier year 1994-95 nor was there any such claim in assessment year 1993-94. he, therefore, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2003)85ITD257(Kol.)
1. to 3. [these paras are not reproduced, here as they involve minor issues.] 4. in ita no. 329/c/1996 for the assessment year 1990-91 and in ground nos. 1 to 5 of ita no. 1126/c/1995 for the assessment year 1991-92,the issue involved is as to whether the sum of rs. 38,27,480 in the assessment year 1990-91 and the sum of rs. 28,92,311 in the assessment year 1991 -92 being the amount paid by the assessee-company to bata workers sickness benefit society (hereinafter referred to as 'the society') is hit by the provision of section 40a(9) of the income-tax act, 1961 and as such has rightly been disallowed by the ld. cit(a).before we take up this issue for our consideration on merits, it is relevant to state that in the appeal filed by the deptt. being ita no.99/c/1997 the ld. cit(a) vide his order dated 15th october, 1996 while considering the order of the a.o. dated 16th july, 1996 passed under section 154 of the act has held that the amount of rs. 28,92,311 contributed by the assessee to the society is an allowable deduction and is not hit by section 40a(9) of the act. the department has disputed the said order of the ld. cit(a) in the above appeal before us.in order to decide this issue the relevant facts are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of production of sale of foot wears.4.1 in the assessment year 1990-91,the assessee-company contributed to the society an amount of rs. 38,27,430 (subsequent stated rs. 38,27,480) and in the assessment year 1991-92 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2004)84TTJ(Kol.)504
1. the assessee is in appeal before us against the order of the cit(a) who disallowed the assessee's claim of rs. 38,12,980 under section 80-ia.2. the facts of the case as stated in the assessment order are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of running hotel in kolkata, port blair and mukutmanipur. the assessee claimed deduction under section 80-ia to the extent of rs. 38,12,849. the building where the hotel peerless inn is situated had been leased in favour of peerless general finance investment co. ltd. by the state government of west bengal through the lease deed dt. 26th march, 1992. subsequently, the assessee entered into an agreement with peerless general finance investment co. ltd. through a lease deed dt. 20th july, 1992 and later through another lease deed dt. 1st april, 1996, in which it was stipulated that the assessee-company shall run and the hotel peerless inn, kolkata upon payment of rental charges of rs. 18 lakhs per year and lease rent of rs. 32 lakhs per annum. the ao was of the view that the agreements between the assessee-company and peerless general finance investment co. ltd. dt. 20th july, 1992 and 1st april, 1996, are for managing and running an existing hotel or at least running a hotel in a building, plant and machinery once used as a hotel, having a different name as well as different owner/user. it was also noted by him that the agreement aforementioned was not only in respect of the building, but all the plants, machinery, lifts .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2004)83TTJ(Kol.)409
1. this appeal, filed by the assessee, is directed against the order dt. 28th sept., 2000, passed by the cit(a)-v, kolkata, in the matter of order under section 154 r/w section 143(3) of the it act, 1961, passed by the jt cit, special range 15, kolkata, for the asst yr 1992-93.2. by way of impugned order under section 154, the ao has held that the assessee was under an obligation to deduct tax at source from the payments termed as 'commission', though, according to the assessee, in the nature of trade discount, sales incentives or bonus on achieving the targeted sales. the ao has further held that as the commission credited by the assessee, to the dealers, amounted to rs. 92,81,460, the assessee is liable to pay the amount of tax non-deducted which, worked out at the rate of 10 per cent of the amount of commission, comes to rs. 9,28,146. the ao further held that the assessee is liable to pay interest under section 201(1a) on the aforesaid amount which worked out to further rs. 9,74,505 till 31st march, 1999. aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal to the cit(a) but without any success. still aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.3. learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee-company is a manufacturer of ayurvedic medicines and has been selling its medicines to dealers and distributors, who is turn, sell it to the retailer which is the point of sale to the final consumers. it is further submitted that goods are sold at wholesale price ( .....
Tag this Judgment!