Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1991)37ITD370(Kol.)
1. these two appeals for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 are directed against the consolidated order passed by the commissioner of income-tax under section 263 of the income-tax act, 1961 modifying the assessments made under section 143(3) of the act and directing the assessing officer to add the following amounts in the assessments : (i) rs. 50,950 and rs. 1,74,699 representing credits in "sales tax suspense account" in the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 respectively; (ii) rs. 45,45,744 lying credited in "collector of customs (party)" account in the assessment year 1985-86.2. the commissioner of income-tax (hereinafter referred to as the 'cit) held that the assessing officer failed to take cognizance of entries shown towards liability side in above a/cs in the balance-sheet and thus made erroneous assessments which were also prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. the cit issued show-cause notice, heard the assessee's representative and directed that addition at (i) above be made with the following observations : the explanation given before me was not available to the assessing officer at the time of completion of assessment. the only information available on the record to the assessing officer was that the amount represented sales tax suspense account. the amount was obviously collected from parties on account of sales tax. the moment sales was effected to the parties a liability of payment of the sales tax was created. this liability could be .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1992)40ITD58(Kol.)
1. this appeal of the revenue is directed against the order of the cit(a). it is relevant for the assessment year 1974-75.2. the assessce md. zafrulla derives income from the partnership firm m/s. rafiullah & bros, and m/s. oriental drug distributors. he filed his return of income for the above assessment year on 4-10-1974. the assessment was completed by an order dated 26-2-1977 determining the income as follows :1. net profit from m/s. rafiullah & bros, as shown subject to rectification as per allocated share income of the firm rs. 12,8832.55% share of m/s. oriental drug distributors as shown subject to rectification rs. 44,357 rs. 57,240 later on, the cit, north eastern region, shillong issued a show-cause notice and passed order under section 263 of the income-tax act, 1961, inter alia, stating that-- i have gone through the records in the case of the assessee and of the firm. by my separate order under section 263 of date, i have set aside the assessment order in the case of the firm for facts on reasons mentioned therein. in view of my findings therein and also in view of the admission made by the assessee's representative, i am satisfied that the assessment order in the present case has been erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. i, therefore, set aside the assessment order and direct the ito to make fresh assessment in accordance with law.on the basis of the above direction the assessing officer completed a fresh assessment on 13-3-1980 as follows : .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1994)48ITD534(Kol.)
1. wta nos. 450 to 452 (cal.) of 1991 relate to the assessmentyears 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87. these appeals are by the assessee. wta nos. 413 to 415 (cal.) of 1991 are appeals by the department for the same years. wta no. 123 (cal.) of 1992 is an appeal by the department for the assessment year 1987-88. since all the appeals were heard together, they are disposed of by a common order.2. the assessee is a. private limited company. it is the owner of a building at mo. 1a connaught place, new delhi, the sand upon which the building stands is held by the assessee on a perpetual lease.3. in the present appeals we are concerned with the valuation of the aforesaid property. the property is a commercial property. it. was let out since 1944. the tenants are stated to use the property for their offices. the assessee became liable to wealth-lax by virtue of section 40 of the finance act, 1983 from the assessment year 1984-85. in the wealth-tax returns the assessee disclosed the value of the property at rs. 5,13,044. the value is based on the rental capitalisation method.the rent has been taken by the assessee on the basts of the delhi rent control act. it is called the "standard rent" under the said act. the standard rent has been arrived at rs, 46,174 in respect of the total area of 39307 sq.ft. in accordance with the principles prescribed by the delhi rent control act. applying 9% rate of capitalisation the assessee adopted a multiplier of 100/9. the computation of the standard .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2000)74ITD43(Kol.)
1. this appeal filed by the assessee-company is directed against the order of the cit(a), central-i, calcutta and it pertains to the asst.yr. 1990-91.2. assessee's claim of share dealing loss was rejected by the ao on the ground that the transactions are not genuine and the cit(a) having confirmed the action of the ao by taking aid of the decision of the supreme court in the case of mcdowell & co. ltd. vs. cto (1985) 154 itr 148 (sc) the assessee-company is before us.3. the facts in short are that during the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1990-91, assessee claimed to have purchased shares of bishnauth tea co. ltd. from m/s. ishwar prasad dewkinandan ltd. and they were said to have been sold to poddar gourepore ltd. and sixteen belvedere (i) ltd., resulting in loss of rs. 22,26,000. after adjusting the loss, the assessee-company returned a total income of rs. 2,620.the case was taken up for scrutiny. assessing officer found that the alleged transactions of purchase and sale of shares were peculiar enough, with reference to the dates of purchase and sale and the persons with whom transacted, etc., to accept the genuineness of the transactions. in this regard he observed that the copies of contracts and bills are merely self-serving documents, inasmuch as, no independent evidence has been produced to corroborate the transactions referred to in that bills. the shares were sold first and purchased later. urgency to buy the shares at a time when the price was higher and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1983)4ITD212(Kol.)
1. both these appeals are in respect of the assessment year 1976-77, whereas st appeal no. 27 (cal.) of 1981 is by the assessee and st appeal no. 28 (cal.) of 1981 is by the revenue.2. the only dispute in the assessee's appeal pertains to the computation of capital for the purpose of determining the chargeable profits.3. the assessee is a shipping company having its head office in sweden.the part of its income is assessable in india in terms of section 44b of the income-tax act, 1961. in the course of the assessment proceedings to surtax question arose as to how the capital of the company for the purpose of the surtax act should be computed. the company worked out the capital for purposes of the surtax act by taking indian capital to world capital in the same ratio as indian income to the world income. profit as per world profit and loss account was worked out by the assessee at rs. 83,37,289. indian income as per income-tax return was rs. 14,06,940. income arising outside india thus, came to rs. 69,30,349. the total world capital of the assessee-ccmpany was rs. 9,32,68,839. the proportionate part of it being in the ratio of indian income to world income was worked out by the assessee-company to be rs. 1,57,39,368 by deducting from the world capital the proportionate part relatable to income arising outside india. the iac, however, did not accept the above working. he felt that it would be more appropriate for the purpose of determining the indian capital to go by the ratio .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1992)41ITD260(Kol.)
order, not charging tax, on market fee collected on wheat products received from various parties, was not erroneous and prejudicial as the same was held on behalf of govt. and deductible as per method regularly followed by the assessee.the sum representing market fee collections is not liable to tax in the hands of the assessee and, at any rate, it would be allowable as an admissible deduction on the mercantile system of accounting which is being regularly followed by the assessee. the assessment order sought to be revised by the commissioner was not erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.1. these two appeals relate to the same assessee and for the same assessment year. hence, they were heard together at the request of the parties and are disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. these appeals arise out of the income-tax assessment of m/s. jamuna flour & oil mills (p.) ltd., the assessee herein. the assessment year is 1984-85 for which the previous year ended on 31-3-1984. the assessee carries on business in running a flour mill where it manufactures wheat products such as atta, suji, maida, etc., out of wheat. the factory of the assessee is situated at katihar in the state of bihar and its registered office is at calcutta.3 to 16. [these paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.] 17. this takes us to the assessee's appeal in ita no. 1658 (cal.)/89 which is directed against the order of the cit, wb-iv, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1993)44ITD268(Kol.)
order of assessing officer refusing to carry forward loss on the ground that return was filed beyond the prescribed time is appealable under section 246.the order of the income tax officer to the effect that the loss cannot be carried forward since the return was filed beyond the time can be appealed against on the footing that the effect of such an order is a non-computation of the loss or computation of the loss at `nil' and on that basis it would come within the purview of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 246. a right of appeal to the assessee against the decision of the income tax officer refusing to carry forward the loss and the appeal to the cit(apppeals) was competent under section 246(1)(c).not to current assessment years as there is no provision for filing return beyond the prescribed time.1. this appeal has been filed by the revenue. the following grounds have been raised: 1. that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned commissioner of income-tax (appeals) had erred in admitting the appeal when the appellant could not be said to be aggrieved in terms of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 246. 2. that, without prejudice to ground no. 1 the learned commissioner of income-tax (appeals) erred in directing the income-tax officer to carry forward the loss determined for the assessment year 1984-85.2. the accounting year of the assessee ended on 30-6-1983. the due date for filing the return was 30-6-1984. however, the return of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1993)44ITD652(Kol.)
1. the only point of dispute in this appeal is whether the cit (appeals) was justified in sustaining an addition of rs. 17,87,500 as the income of the appellant-company from undisclosed sources.2. this appeal arises out of the income-tax assessment of m/s. sencorp india ltd., the appellant herein. the assessment year involved is 1987-88 for which the previous year ended on 30-6-1986. while completing the assessment of the appellant-company for this year on 2-3-1990 under section 143(3) of the income-tax act, 1961, the assessing officer added back a sum of rs. 53,62,500 as the income of the appellant from undisclosed sources. according to him, the appellant-company introduced this amount as advances and loans, that the departmental enquiries revealed that investment companies in certain cases were utilised as a device to introduce the concealed income and that none of the share applicants to whom summonses were issued by him were produced by the assessee nor their sources for investment were proved. in other words, the ao held that the nature and source of the investment introduced in different names remained unapproved. he further held that the managing director and some of the shareholders of the company were staying in bombay and it was not possible to make any enquiry in respect of them. however, by giving a credit for 25%, he treated the balance 75% of the share capital amount of rs. 71,50,000 received by the assessee, as the income of the assessee from undisclosed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1994)48ITD428(Kol.)
1. mr. c.r. datta, the assessee herein, is a barrister of lincoln's inn practising in the calcutta high court. he wrote a book on company law.in the year 1970 he entered into an agreement with m/s. eastern law house (elh), calcutta by which he granted permission to the publishers (i.e., elh) to publish the book, subject to payment of royalty. the book itself came to be written later. the first edition was published in 1973 and the second edition in 1976. there was no further edition of the book brought out by elh and the agreement with elh was terminated on 21-2-1982 by a written agreement.2. the assessee thereafter entered into an agreement with m/s. orient law house, publishers (olh, for short). this was on 25-5-1982, by the agreement, the assessee purported to sell the 'copyright' as well as 'the goodwill' in the book for a sum of rs. 5 lakhs, bifurcated into rs. 4 lakhs for goodwill and rs. 1 lakh for the copyright. the amount of rs. 5 lakhs was received as below: in the financial assessment amount towards year ending year rs. 1981-82 1982-83 1,00,000 goodwill 1982-83 1983-84 1,50,000 goodwill 50,000 copyright 1983-84 1984-85 1,50,000 goodwill 50,000 copyright 3. in the returns filed for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85, the assessee claimed that the receipts were not taxable since, according to him, they were capital receipts. the assessee further claimed that the receipts cannot be taxed as capital gains also since both gopdwill and copyright were self- .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1993)47ITD552(Kol.)
1. this appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the cit(a) confirming the penalty of rs. 1 lac imposed on the assessee under section 27 1b of the act.2. the assessee is a registered firm. during the relevant accounting year, the assessee carried on business in jute goods and shares. the assessee also indulged in certain speculative transactions. in respect of the accounting year ended 12-11-1985, relevant for the assessment year 1986-87, the assessee was liable to have its accounts audited under section 44ab of the income-tax act. the due date for obtaining the audit report was 30-6-1986. however, the audit report under section 44ab was obtained by the assessee only on 30-9-1986. the audit report was filed along with the return of income on 21-10-1986. the assessing officer completed the assessment and initiated proceedings for penalty under section 271b of the act. the assessee explained in the course of the penalty proceedings that the auditor m/s. s.k. singhania&co., 19-a,chowringhee road, calcutta had been entrusted with the audit work and they had informed the assessee that in view of the heavy pressure of work and other professional commitments, it would not be possible for them to complete the audit before 30-6-1986. the assessee was therefore requested by the auditor to seek extension of time for filing the income-tax return. it was further pointed out that the assessee had applied for extension of time to file the return up to 31-12-1986 on the .....
Tag this Judgment!