Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1993)44ITD48(Kol.)
..... revenue.27. in the case of durgadas khanna(supra), the supreme court held that prima facie premium or salami is not income and that it is for the income-tax authorities to show that facts existed which would make it a revenue payment. this decision followed the principles laid down by the supreme court in their earlier judgment in the case of member for the board of agricultural income-tax v. sindhurani chaudhurani [1957] 32 itr 169. this decision of the supreme court was followed by the calcutta high ..... rs. 2,56,529 which was sought to be included in the total income of the assessee under section 41(1) of the income-tax act, 1961 in that case. their lordships held that section 41(1) of the act treated as income what had earlier been allowed as a deduction and that it creates a liability to tax only in those cases where an allowance had been actually granted. though this is a case under section 41(1) of the act, still the principles of this decision of the calcutta high court are equally .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1993)44ITD202(Kol.)
assessing officer allowing change of previous year without enquiry and also taxwise prejudicial to revenue--Revisional jurisdiction invocable.There was no material on record either in the form of notices and/or letters issued by the Income Tax Officer seeking clarifications from the assessee regarding the change or in the form of entries in the order sheet indicating that the pros and cons of the change of the accounting period were weighed and a conscious decision, after due application of mind, was taken. Therefore, the Commissioner's finding that no enquiry had been conducted by the Income Tax Officer before passing the order under section 3(4) is correct. The income by way of lottery earned in September, 1984 was taxable under the Act, and would have been brought to tax, in the assessee's case, for the previous year ended on 31-3-1985 relevant for the assessment year 1985-86. By reason of the change granted by the Income Tax Officer, the assessment year 1985-86 was skipped. The lo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1992)42ITD700(Kol.)
1. The assessee in these appeals has taken several grounds against the order of the Appellate Commissioner dated 6-9-1990 and they relate to assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74. The issues involved in these appeals are two folds, namely: (a) whether the assessments were validly reopened under Section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act and; (b) whether the value adopted by the WTO in respect of half share of the assessee in property at No. 3A, Camac Street, Calcutta was correct. At the outset, Sri S.K. Lahiri, the learned departmental representative pointed out that the assessee in the appeals preferred before the AAC against the reassessment orders had challenged the reopening action of the WTO and the AAC by his order dated 28-12-1984 had set aside the appeals for these years and while doing so had dealt with this issue and confirmed the reopening action of the WTO under Section 17 of the Act. The assessee did not prefer further appeals before the Tribunal against the findin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1992)42ITD316(Kol.)
..... about the assessee being an "industrial undertaking" duly qualified to claim investment allowance under section 32a of the income-tax act, 1961. the dispute before us is limited to claim on trailers employed for carrying plucked leaves from garden to factory. the assessee's claim has been rejected on the ground that trailers employed for carriage of leaves did not form part of machinery used for production or manufacture of tea. carriage of green leaves is only a part of agricultural process.6. in our opinion the objection raised by the revenue is not well-founded .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1992)43ITD32(Kol.)
1. The present appeals have been filed on 26-11-1990 by the Deputy Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Special Range-8, Calcutta against the order of CWT (Appeals), Range-X, Calcutta.2. The impugned order of the CWT(Appeals) was communicated to the Commissioner on 17-9-1990 as is mentioned in clause 9 of Form No. 'F' being form of appeal to the Tribunal under Section 24(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. According to the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 24 the appeals should have been filed before the Appellate Tribunal on or before 16-11-1990 which is within 60 days from the date of communication of the order of the Appellate Commissioner to the CIT.The appeals are, therefore, barred by time by 10 days. By virtue of Sub-section (3) of Section 24 of the Act the Appellate Tribunal is empowered to admit an appeal after the expiry of the relevant period referred to in Sub-Section (1) or Sub-section (2) of Section 24 if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1992)42ITD39(Kol.)
1. These three appeals filed by the assessee pertain to the assessment years 1981-82 to 1983-84. For the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83, they are directed against the common order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, dated 19-2-1990, passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act. For the assessment year 1983-84, the appeal is directed against the order dated 24-3-1987 passed by the CIT(A) in appeal against the assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 164(1)/144 A of the Act. The issue in all the appeals is common; in fact, while passing the order under Section 263, the CIT has relied on and adopted the reasons, set out in the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 1983-84. Since the issue is common and since all the appeals were heard together on the same day, we dispose them of by a common order, for the sake of convenience.2. The question posed before us for decision is whether the assessee-trust is liable to be assessed at the maximum marginal rate of tax u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1993)45ITD603(Kol.)
..... deduction as debt owed in computing the net wealth of the assessee. the cwt(a), in our opinion, was, therefore, not correct in rejecting the claim of the assessee in this regard. we direct the wto to verify and allow deduction of interest under sections 139, 215 and 220(2) of the income-tax act, 1961 in the light of our above findings.9. regarding issue no. (v) we find from the impugned order that the cwt(a) has restored the matter to the file of the assessing officer for the purpose of re-examination of the issue by considering certain concrete evidence relating ..... and have become final. in support of his submissions the assessee's counsel has relied on the decisions in the cases of cit v. assam oil co. ltd. [1982] 133 itr 204 (cal.), cit v.rangnath bangur [1984] 149 itr 487 (raj.); m.r. thammaiah v.agricultural ito [1984] 150 itr 403 (kar.); state bank of hyderabad v.cit [1988] 171 itr 232 (ap) and cit v. indian rare earth ltd. [1990] 181 itr 22 (bom.). sri agarwal, therefore, submitted .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1992)41ITD437(Kol.)
1. Aggrieved against the order of the CIT(A) the assessee has preferred this appeal before us taking five grounds which are as under : 1. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in issuing a notice under Section 251(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which is bad in law and should, therefore, be quashed. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was not justified in enhancing the assessment for the assessment year under consideration, as he had no power under the provisions of the Income-tax Act to do so. 3. Without prejudice to the earlier grounds of appeal it is submitted that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in not allowing the set off of the earlier years' business losses amounting to Rs. 11,34,420, including unabsorbed depreciation, against the income for the assessment year under consideration on the ground that bu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1992)41ITD582(Kol.)
1. This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 1984-85 is directed against order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)'] dated September 19, 1990.2. The first and the main controversy relates to Rs. 2057.77 lakhs disallowed and added back in the income of the assessee under the provisions of Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The relevant facts leading to the above addition are as follows.3. The assessee, a well-known public limited company, carried business of manufacture and sale of tyres and tubes in the previous year ending December 31, 1983, relevant to the assessment year 1984-85. The Company maintained its books of account on mercantile basis. The goods manufactured and produced by the asssssee were liable to Central Excise Duty and it is an admitted position that total liability incurred in the relevant period amounted to Rs. 8312.41 lakhs. The assessee actually paid towards duty a s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1992)41ITD260(Kol.)
..... trading receipt, as held by the supreme court in the case of chowringhee sales bureau (p.) ltd. v. cit [1973] 87 itr 542 and sinclair murray & co. (p.) ltd. v. cit [1974] 97 itr 615. he rejected the assessee's plea distinguishing the fee realised by the assessee under the bihar agricultural produce markets act, 1960 and the tax referred to in the two cases decided by the supreme court, as untenable. the cit held following these two decisions of the supreme court that the receipts in question were clearly revenue receipts ..... referred us to 'the assessee's reply to the show-cause notice under section 263 of the act and pointed out that none of the objections raised by the assessee in its reply had been met by the cit.20. the learned counsel next argued that there was a clear distinction between the market fee levied by a market committee under the bihar agricultural produce markets act, 1960 and 'tax'. he next submitted that similar levies of market fee under other state enactments such as .....
Tag this Judgment!