Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1996)58ITD189(Kol.)
1. the only point in this appeal by the assessee us whether the departmental authorities were right in refusing the deduction of rs. 1,68,399/-in respect of the capital loss stated to have been incurred by the assessee in regard to the shares held by it in aluminum corporation of india ltd. (acil for short) 2. the assessee is a hindu undivided family. in this appeal we are concerned with the assessment year 1987-88 for which the previous year ended on 29-3-1987. in the return the assessee claimed deduction in respect of the aforesaid capital loss. the income-tax officer while completing the assessment under section 143 (3) observed that the assessee held 15390 equity shares in acil for rs. 1,68,399 which figure was written off in the assessee's books and was claimed as capital loss. he was of the view that since there was no transfer in terms of section 45 read with section 2 (47) of the act, the claim cannot be allowed. he referred to the judgments of the madras high court in the case of sundaram industries (p) ltd. v. cit (1969) 74 itr 243 and in the case of c. a. natarajan v. cit (1973) 92 itr 347.3. it was contended in appeal before the cit (appeals) that the capital loss ought to have been allowed. in particular, it was contended that the assessee's rights in the shares were extinguished as a result of nationalisation of acil by the govt. of india and, therefore, there was a transfer within the meaning of section 2 (47) of the act. the cit (appeals) referred to the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2002)80ITD21(Kol.)
1. this is an appeal by the revenue against the order of the git(a) lor the asst. yr. 1991-92.2. the appeal is late by 13 days beyond the statutory fixed time-limit of 60 days from the date of receipt of the order of the cit(a) by the cit. the relevant dates are--date of receipt of cit(a)'s order 29-8-199560 days expired on 27-10-1995appeal filed on 9-11-1995delay 13 days a petition for condonation was filed by the ao on 10th nov., 1995 giving the following reasons in which the entire delay was attributed to cit's office, which reads as under:-- that the festive season hampered the normal office work for a long days which resulted in submission of appeal scrutiny report delayed to the higher authorities and as such no authorisation was received from the cit on that day.that no authorisation for filing of second appeal before the tribunal, calcutta in the matter was received from the cit.that no authorisation for filing of second appeal therefore the tribunal, calcutta in the matter was received from the cit.that no authorisation for filing of second appeal before the tribunal, calcutta in the matter was received from the cit on that day.that necessary authorisation for filing of second appeal before the tribunal, calcutta was received from the cit at the last hour. hence, papers complete in all respects could not be prepared on that day.that necessary papers complete in all respects could not be prepared on that day.in the circumstances, i am filing the appeal in question .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2002)255ITR72(Kol.)
1. these four appeals are by the revenue against the orders deleting the penalties levied by the assessing officer under sections 271(1)(c), 273(2)(b), 271b and 271(1)(a) of the act on the ground that the orders of penalty were barred by limitation.last date for imposition of penalty 31-1-1992belated appeal against quantum filed on 22-3-1993appeal not admitted and dismissed as barred by limitation 22-5-1996 3. the assessee's contention is that the time limit for passing order of penalty has expired on january 31, 1992, being six months from the end of the month in which the proceedings were initiated on july 2, 1991. the extended period of limitation in the case of filing of the appeal, it is submitted was not available to the department as the first time of six months had already expired on january 31, 1992, and the appeal was filed belatedly much after the date on march 22, 1993, and that too was not admitted and dismissed as barred limitation by the commissioner of income-tax (appeals) on may 22, 1996. learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the time limit having already expired could not be revived by the subsequent act of filing an appeal by the assessee under section 246 and a reference to the two calcutta high court decisions in the cases of bhagirath kanoria v. cit [1980] 122 itr 728 and the patna high court in the case of cit v. jankidas mohan lal [1987] 163 itr 756 was made.4. the time limit for imposing penalty is prescribed in section 275 of the act, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
1. these four appeals are by the revenue against the order deleting the penalties levied by the ao under sections 271(1)(c), 273(2)(b), 271b and 271(1)(a) of the act on the ground that the orders of penalty were barred by limitation.3. the assessee's contention is that, the time-limit for passing order of penalty has expired on 31st jan., 1992, being 6 months from the end of the month in which the proceedings, were initiated on 2nd july, 1991. the extended period of limitation in the case of filing of the appeal, it is submitted, was not available to the department as the first time-limit of 6 months had already expired on 21st jan., 1992 and the appeal was filed belatedly much after the date on 22nd march, 1993, and that too was not admitted and dismissed as barred by limitation by cit(a) on 22nd may, 1996, learned counsel of the assessee submitted that the time-limit having already expired could not be revived by the subsequent act of filing an appeal by the assessee under section 246 and a reference to the two calcutta high court decisions in the case of bhaghath kanona v. cit (1980) 122 itr 728 (cal) and patna high court in the case of cit v. jankidas mohanlal (1987) 163 itr 756 (pat) was made.4. the time-limit for imposing penalty is prescribed in section 275 of the act, which is material to decide the issue under consideration, is reproduced as under: "275. (1) no order imposing a penalty under this chapter shall be passed : (a) in a case where the relevant assessment .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1995)52ITD207(Kol.)
1. the only ground in this appeal by the department is that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the cit (a) erred in directing the ito to allow registration to the assessee-firm under section 184(7) of the i.t. act. the appeal arises this way. the assessee is a partnership firm consisting of five partners. in respect of the assessment year 1987-88 for which the accounting year ended on 31-3-1987 the ito while completing the assessment passed an order under section 186 of the act along with the assessment order. in this order he stated that the assessee had earned a gain of rs. 11,68,268 out of which a sum of rs. 8 lacs was transferred to the general reserve and the balance only was transferred to the partners' capital accounts. the ito thus came to the conclusion that the entire profits have not been divided which is a condition for getting registration. he therefore called upon the assessee to show cause as to why registration should not be cancelled. the assessee responded by objecting to the proposal.it was pointed out that the gain referred to by the ito was not a commercial profit but was a capital gain assessed as such in the assessment order and therefore there was no need to divide the same between the partners. the ito was not convinced with the explanation.he therefore cancelled the registration. on appeal the cit (a) came to the following conclusion : i have gone through the order passed under section 186 and have considered the submissions made as .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1996)58ITD273(Kol.)
1. these two appeals filed by the assessee-company are against the consolidated order of the cit (a)-ii, dated 20-9-1993. as per section 40 of the finance act, 1983, certain specified assets of closely held companies are liable to wealth-tax. the assessing officer completed the assessments under section 16 (5) of the of w. t. act wherein the value of the motor cars was brought to tax.2. aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals before the first appellate authority wherein it was contended that the motor cars owned by the assessee were used for leasing out on rental basis and the wealth-tax officer was not justified in taxing the value of motor cars under the w. t. act. the first appellate authority confirmed the assessment order by holding that the w. t. o.'s action in bringing to tax the value of the motor cars, is fully justified.3. further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. the ld.counsel for the assessee contended before us that by the finance act, 1988 proviso to section 40 (3) of the finance act, 1983 was inserted by which the motor cars held by a company as stock-in-trade in its business or registered as tax is and used as such in a business in running motor cars on hire carried on by the company will not be treated as assets liable to tax. he has further submitted that the assessee is carrying on business of leasing and in the course of its regular business activities the motor cars are leased on hire and hence the proviso to section 40 (3) of the finance .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2003)78TTJ(Kol.)158
1. this appeal, filed by the assessee, is directed against cit(a)'s order for the asst. yr. 1989-90. the assessee is a public sector undertaking, and, accordingly, it has duly obtained requisite clearance from the committee on disputes (cabinet secretariat) for the ground of appeal it seeks to pursue in this appeal.2. as for the grounds of appeal nos. 1 and 2, learned counsel fairly stated that since the assessee has not been able to obtain cod clearance for the same and since the assessee is, therefore, not pressing the same, these two grounds may be treated as withdrawn.accordingly, we dismiss the ground nos. 1 and 2 as withdrawn.3. solitary grievance of the assessee, for which cod clearance is obtained and which the assessee has pressed before us, is against cit(a)'s confirming the disallowance of rs. 1,03,07,000 made by the ao on account of provision to give effect of revision of pay scale of officers based on bureau of public enterprises (bpe) guidelines. this grievance is covered by ground of appeal no. 3.4. briefly, the material facts giving rise to this dispute before us.during the course of assessment proceedings, ao noticed that the assessee-company had, claimed a deduction of rs. 1,03,37,000 on account of provision for salary, wages and allowances. in the accompanying notes on accounts in para. 22(a), it was also stated that "present pay scales of the officers of the company were approved by the government of india in terms of do no. 27/13/82 fin. 1 (pt.), dt. 5th .....
Tag this Judgment!