Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
1. ita no. 304/kol./2005 and co. nos. 227 and 228/kol./2005 are filed by the assessee for assessment years 1999-2000 to 2001-02 respectively.the ita no. 558/kol./2005, ita no. 559/kol./2005 and ita no. 560/ kol./2005 are the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 1999-2000 to 2001-02. all the above appeals by the revenue and appeal and cross-objection by the assessee are directed against the common order of commissioner (appeals)-v, kolkata dated 19-11-2004. ita nos.1672 to 1676/kol./2005 are filed by the revenue for assessment years 1994-95 to 1998-99.2. in the assessee's appeal in ita no. 304/kol./2005 as well as in cross objection nos. 227 and 228/kol./2005 filed by the assessee, it has raised additional ground which reads as under: the order needs to be vacated as on the date of passing of order the company was non-existent having merged with shah wallace distilleries ltd. with effect from 1-7-2000.3. at the time of hearing before us it is stated by the ld. counsel that the additional ground raised by the assessee is purely a legal ground which goes to the root of the matter and, therefore, the same should be admitted. he also stated that all the necessary facts relating to this ground already on record and any investigation of fact is not required for adjudicating the additional ground.4. ld. d.r. did not seriously objected to the admissions of additional ground.5. we have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed before us. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1984)7ITD913(Kol.)
1. through these appeals the assessee has challenged the combined order of the commissioner passed in terms of sub-section (2) of section 25 of the wealth-tax act, 1957 ('the act') in respect of the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 setting aside the assessment orders passed by the wto in respect of these years and directing him to frame them afresh in accordance with the facts of the case and the law after giving due opportunity to the assessee for representing his case.2. the facts bearing on the controversy may be noted. the assessee is a huf. its valuation dates for the aforesaid two years are 31-3-1973 and 31-3-1974, respectively. 'the family's wealth consists, inter alia, of several houses two of which are situated at gurusaday road bearing nos.1a and 1b, gurusaday road, calcutta. the wto referred to the valuation officer the valuation of the properties nos. 1a and ib, gurusaday road, vide his letter dated 29-7-1978 in terms of section 16a of the act. the wto requested the valuation officer in this letter that the valuation of the aforesaid two houses may be made for wealth-tax assessment purposes for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1978-79. he indicated in the said letter that both the aforesaid properties have been valued by the assessee at rs. 3,59,100 up to the assessment year 1972-73. he wanted the opinion of the valuer because, according to the wto, the value of the said properties, as declared by the assessee, was, according to him, grossly undervalued. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1983)6ITD456(Kol.)
1. this is an application praying for correction of a mistake said to be apparent from the record. the question in dispute was the allowability of depreciation and development rebate in respect of additional liability incurred due to exchange rate differences. the commissioner (appeals) had directed the ito to allow the depreciation on additional liability of rs. 3,70,998 for the expenditure incurred on account of devaluation during this year. the tribunal further appears to have accepted the assessee's contention that the claim for depreciation and development rebate should have been allowed on a sum of rs. 23,61,713 because as a result of difference in the exchange rate, the assessee's liability had increased to this extent. it has now been contended by the revenue that this was an entirely new position and was contested by the representative of the department at the time of hearing. the actual increase in the liability whether on account of mercantile system of accounts or otherwise had never been pleaded, examined or considered for allowance by any of the lower authorities.therefore, the tribunal could not have allowed this claim at this stage and the order of the tribunal should be rectified.2. the application has been strongly contested by raising the following pleas : 2. that the content of the application is untrue. the claim in question was duly made before the commissioner of income-tax (appeals) : vide copy enclosed. 3. that according to settled law the said .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1992)42ITD172(Kol.)
1. this is an appeal against the order of the cit (appeals) sustaining a penalty of rs. 2,25,544 levied under section 273(2)(a) of the income-tax act, 1961.2. this appeal arises out of the income-iax proceedings of m/s. star paper mills ltd., the appellant herein. the assessment year 1976-77, for which the previous year ended on 31-3-1976, the appellant carries on business in the manufacture and sale of paper. the appellant filed its return of income for this year on 28-9-1976 declaring a total income of rs. 3,45,94,013 which later on revised by a revised return filed on 22-1-1979 as rs. 3,40,91,560. the total income finally assessed for this year amounted to rs. 3,53,25,310 alter giving effect to the appellate orders of the appellate tribunal dated 6-11-1985.3. before completing the assessment under section 143(3) on 21-1-1980 on a total income of rs. 3,63,06,800, the iac, range-vi (central), calcutta initiated penal action under section 273(2)(a) of the act against the assessee for filing wrong estimate of advance tax under sections 212(1) and (2). in response to the show-cause notices against the levy of penalty, the assessee submitted its objections in writing on 14-3-1980 and again on 20-1-1986. the ito, central circle-iv, calcutta, who came to have jurisdiction over this case, in the meanwhile considered these objections of the appellant and held as follows to impose a penalty of rs. 2,25,544 under section 273(2)(a) of the act :-- the assessee's submission in the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1992)40ITD550(Kol.)
1. the revenue objects to the order of the cit (appeals) on the following ground: on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned cit (a) erred in law and in fact in allowing the benefit of fictitious loss of rs. 5,11,680 which was not in existence after settlement of income at rs. 7,60,000 and thereby deleting the undisclosed income of rs. 5,11,680 representing cash balance.2. this appeal arises out of the income-tax assessment of m/s. guru nanak estates, the assessee herein, which is a partnership firm carrying on business as builders. the assessment year is 1985-86 for which the previous year ended on31-3-1985. for this year, the assessee filed are turn on 30-7-1987 declaring a loss of rs. 20,916. the ito, however, completed the assessment on a total income of rs. 4,90,764 under section 143(3) of the income-tax act, 1961 by his order dated 29-3-1988. in computing this income, the ito added a sum of rs. 5,11,680 as the undisclosed concealed income of the assessee under the head "other sources". for this, he relied on the entries made by the assessee in its cash book as on 31-3-1985 claiming that there was net cash of rs. 10,61,680 available on that date. the ito pointed out that the assessee had accumulated book loss of rs. 5,11,680, that it had added back this amount of loss to the settlement profit at rs. 7,60,000 for the assessment years 1979-80 to 1983-84 and that this was not correct. according to the ito, this loss should have been ignored as it .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1994)49ITD1(Kol.)
1. by this misc. application the assessee has required the tribunal to amend its order dated 30-4-1991 under the provisions of section 254(2) of the income-tax act, 1961.2. we have heard sri p.r.p. verma, the learned counsel of the assessee and sri s.c. sen, the learned senior departmental representative. we have also perused the order of the tribunal dated 30-4-1991. the paper book filed by the assessee's counsel on 8-7-1991 on which the assessee's counsel has heavily relied on was also gone through.3. on careful consideration of the arguments advanced by both the sides and the records available to us, we do not find any merit in the misc.application filed by the assessee. we also find that the paper book filed by the assessee on 8-7-1991 was not filed before the tribunal during the course of hearing the appeal. since the tribunal has passed its order on the basis of arguments advanced by both the sides during the course of hearing the appeal as well as on the basis of the records available before it, the alleged mistakes stated to have been committed by the tribunal cannot be said to be apparent from the records. in fact, the assessee merely made an attempt to persuade the tribunal to review its order which is not permissible in law as held in a number of judicial decisions.4. in view of the facts stated above, the misc. application filed by the assessee is hereby rejected.5. i have carefully gone through the proposed order of the learned accountant member in this .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1997)61ITD167Cal
1. in the appeal by the revenue it is contended that the deduction under section 80-o is to be allowed only on the net income brought into india in convertible foreign exchange and not on the gross amount of income so brought. in the assessment order, the deduction was computed as under : debited to p & l a/c rs. 29,33,75,063b.total receipt inclusion of foreign receipts rs. 44,57,57,946c.total foreign receipts rs. 5,41,84,270less : receipt on which benefit ofdeduction would not be allowed rs. 3,61,827 rs. 5,38,22,443expenditure allowable to foreign receipts ----- = -------------------------------- = 3,54,23,176 b 44,57,57,946less : expenditure - rs. 3,54,23,176 rs. 1,83,99,267 -----------------50% of rs. 1,83,99,267, i.e., rs. 91,99,633 allowed as deductionunder section 80-o." 2. on appeal, the cit(a) following the order of the tribunal in the assessee's case for the assessment year 1985-86 and the orders of the cit(a) for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91, accepted the assessee's contention and held that the deduction has to be allowed on the gross amount of income brought into india in convertible foreign exchange without deducting any expenses in india.3. we find that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the tribunal dated 13-9-1991 in ita no. 1827 (cal.) of 1990 and ita no. 2284 (cal.) of 1990 for the assessment year 1985-86. in this order the issue has been deal with at length and the provisions of section 80-o have been considered along .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1998)65ITD169(Kol.)
1. the first ground of appeal relates to the disallowance of the assessee's claim of deduction on account of expenditure incurred in respect of staff house. the assessee claimed deduction to the extent of 25 per cent. whereas the ao estimated the allowable expenditure to the extent of 10 per cent. only. the learned cit(a) found that there was no material to indicate that 10 per cent. allowed by the ao was not a fair estimate and that allowance should be raised to 25 per cent. as claimed by the assessee. during the course of hearing before us the learned counsel for the assessee argued that disallowance out of guest house expenses under the provisions of s. 37(4) can be made of such expenditure only which pertains to s. 37. items of expenses of such nature as are covered by the provisions of ss. 30 to 36 are to be allowed in full. in support of this contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of the hon'ble calcutta high court in the case of cit vs.tungabhadra industries ltd. (1994) 207 itr 553 (cal). he, therefore, argued that expenditure incurred on rent, depreciation, etc. should be allowed. the learned departmental representative argued that in the decision reported in asstt. cit vs. trade links ltd. (1995) 54 itd 108 (del), delhi bench have held to the contrary after finding support from the judgments of the hon'ble calcutta high court in the cases of kesoram industries & cotton mills ltd. vs. cit (1991) 191 itr 518 (del) and the cit vs. upper ganges sugar mills ltd. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2001)77ITD218(Kol.)
1. these two appeals have been filed by both the sides against the order of the cit(a) dated 28-12-1998. since the issues involved are common in both the appeals, they have been consolidated and a common order is being passed for the sake of convenience.2. the assessee before us is pak-indo-lanka-joint management committee (known in short as pilcom), which is actually a committee formed by the cricket control boards/ associations of three countries viz., pakistan, india and sri lanka, formed for the purpose of conducting the world cup cricket tournament for the year 1996 in these three countries.actually, international cricket council (icc) is a non-profit making organisation having its headquarters at london, which controls and conducts the game of cricket in the different countries of the world.icc has got nine full members and twenty associate members. in a special meeting of icc held on 2-2-1993 at london, india, pakistan and sri lanka were selected, on the basis of competitive bids, to have the privilege of jointly hosting the 1996 world cup cricket tournament.these three host countries were required to pay varying amounts to the cricket control boards/associations of different countries as well as to icc in connection with conducting the preliminary phases of the tournament and also for the purpose of promotion of the game in their respective countries. for the purpose of conducting the final phase of the tournament in india, pakistan and sri lanka, a committee was .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2001)76ITD89(Kol.)
1. this is a special bench case involving the following important question of law : "whether on the facts and circumstances of the ease, blending and bottling of spirit would amount to manufacture or production process so as to be entitled to deduction under section 80hh of the income-tax act, 1961?" 2. for the assessment years 1985:86 & 1986-87 the assessee-company claimed deduction under section 80hh of the act. the business of the assessec-company was to process the raw alcohol and selling the same with a new brand name such as haywards fine whisky, haywards gold medal whisky and haywards doctor's brandy. it is the claim of the assessee that it is carrying on business of manufacturing different brands of imfl products and by the result of various processes involved, the end product is a totally new commercial commodity and hence, it is entitled to deduction under section 80hh of the act. the said claim of the assessee for the assessment year 1983-84 the calcutta bench of itat has considered the same issue and decided in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. but during the course of hearing of the appeals for the assessment years under consideration the learned ar of the assessee brought to our notice the fact that the madras bench of itat in the case of ito v. a. joseph louis [1990] 33 itd 485 has decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. in these circumstances, the issue was referred to the president, itat for constitution .....
Tag this Judgment!