Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2008)115TTJ(Kol.)390
1. this appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dt. 6th march, 2007 of the cit(a)-xiv, kolkata pertaining to asst. yr. 2003-04.in this appeal by the assessee, the following grounds are raised: 1. the learned cit(a) erred in upholding the order of the ao passed under section 143(3) substituting the value adopted by the stamp valuation authorities as the full value of consideration received of rs. 3,34,42,244 as against rs. 2,34,00,000 recorded in the record of sale. 2. that the cit(a) failed to appreciate that during the course of assessment, appellant had challenged the value adopted by the stamp duty authorities and the ao was informed of fair market value adopted under section 50c where the department had a right to pre-emptive purchase in lieu of the purchaser.2. the brief facts leading to this appeal filed by the assessee, as narrated at the time of hearing and also borne out by records are that the assessee individual owned a property no. 63/2/c the mall, kanpur, u.p., measuring 1863.10 metres, along with 7 others, which they wanted to transfer to m/s kan constructions & colonizers (p) ltd., for an apparent consideration of rs. 2,34,00,000, by an agreement dt. 20th sept., 2001, which was registered on 28th nov., 2001. the implementation of the said agreement required "no objection certificate" (noc) from the appropriate authority under the it act, 1961, in terms of section 269uc(1), contained in chapter xx-c of the act, and accordingly, before registration .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1983)5ITD338(Kol.)
1. this appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the commissioner (appeals) dated 10-8-1981 by which he rectified the order passed by the aac.2. the sto while making the assessment under section 6(2) of the companies (profits) surtax act, 1964 ('the act'), rejected the assessee's claim for inclusion of bank loans amounting to rs. 72,57,782, while determining the capital base under the act.3. when the matter went up to the aac, it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the loan in question was obtained by the assessee for integrated expansion project under which expanded production facilities in factories at belur, hirakud, muri and alupuram were set up. it was submitted that capital cost of this project was met out of debenture loan, aluminium ltd. loan, bank loan and the shortfall from retained profit. the aac after considering the submissions made before him held that the bank loans satisfied the conditions prescribed under rule 1(v) of the second schedule of the act. therefore, this loan will have to be taken in to the capital base under the second schedule. he, therefore, directed the sto to recompute the capital base by including the bank loan of rs. 72,57,782. thereafter, the sto by his letter dated 13-3-1981 requested the commissioner (appeals) to rectify the aforementioned order of the aac as he was of the opinion that the conclusion of the aac regarding inclusion of bank loan while computing the capital base was not legally correct. the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1983)5ITD378(Kol.)
1. these two wealth-tax appeals raise common questions and, therefore, they are disposed of by a single order.2. the assessee claimed exemption of rs. 1,50,000 under section 5(1)(iv)(a) (sic) of the wealth-tax act, 1957 ('the act') and limited his claim of exemption to rs. 1,50,000 as mentioned under this section.this sum of rs. 1,50,000 is made up of the following amounts for the assessment year 1975-76 : description of value as on value of assets held assets 13-4-1975 for mere than 6 months continuously prior to the controversy centered round the exemption relating to the moneys in the fixed deposit of rs. 93,794. the wto was of the opinion that the assessee cannot get deduction of the debt which he has incurred which is equivalent to the sum claimed as exemption, viz., rs. 93,794. to clarify the matters little further, it may be mentioned that the assessee admittedly incurred loan of rs. 4 lakhs and odd from raja janoki nath roy ramendra nath roy and co. (p.) ltd. and out of that the assessee invested in the fixed deposits to the extent of rs. 2,11,841.the assessee claimed the deduction of the debt under section 2(m)(ii) of the act, but since the assessee is claiming exemption to the extent of rs. 93,794 under section 5(1 a), the assessee was held to be not entitled to the exemption to that extent in view of the language of section 2(m)(ii). this view has been approved by the first appellate authority.3. there is no dispute that the fixed deposits were made with the money .....
Tag this Judgment!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 : (2006)101ITD95Cal
1. all these appeals preferred by the different assessees are directed against the common order passed by the ld. cit(a)-xl, kolkata dated 27^th may, 2005 in the cases of these five appellants for the assessment year 2002-03 and 2003-04.2. since common facts and grounds are involved in all the five abovementioned appeals viz. i.t.a. nos. 1837, 1838, 1839, 1850 & 1851/kol./2005 filed by the different assessees, we, therefore, decide to dispose of the same by a common consolidated order for the sake of convenience.3. the assessees have preferred the following common grounds before us in case of ail five appeals: (i) for that the ld. cit(a)-xl, kolkata without considering the provisions of law and submissions made before him by the appellant, has confirmed the order of the a.o. which is not justice and lawful. (ii) for that the ld. cit(a)-xl, kolkata has confirmed the order passed by the ld. a.o. in respect of the determination of residential status accepting a controversial and subjudice decision of the hon'ble gujrat high court but ignoring an accepted the decision of the hon'ble itat, 'b' bench, kolkata which is arbitrary and unjust. (iii) for that the appellant should be treated as "resident but not resident" for the year in question as per provision of section 6(6)(a) of the act and not a 'resident' as determined by the a.o. misapplying the provision of law and justice.4. facts in brief are that all the assessees are indian citizens, maritime executives and employees of .....
Tag this Judgment!