Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1982)1ITD160(Kol.)
1. These appeals by the assessee, Ram Gopal Neotia of Calcutta, an individual, directed against four different orders of the IAC, Range VII, Calcutta, each dated 31-3-1977 under Section 271(1)(c), levying penalties of Rs. 2,600 for the assessment year 1958-59, Rs. 5,279 for the assessment year 1959-60, Rs. 2,304 for the assessment year 1960-61 and Rs. 3,189 for the assessment year 1961-62, for having concealed the particulars of his income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof for each of the said years, have been consolidated, heard together and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience. As already stated, the years of assessment involved are 1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62 for which the respective previous years ended 31-3-1958, 31-3-1959, 31-3-1960 and 31-3-1961.2. The admitted facts in the present appeals and/or found by us are that on the returns originally filed by the assessee for the years under consideration, the ITO completed the assess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1984)8ITD537(Kol.)
1. All these appeals involve common points. They are disposed of by a common order.2. In these appeals, filed by the assessee, various grounds regarding valuation have been taken. But at the time of hearing the following common additional ground has been raised: For that the return of wealth for the relevant assessment year having filed along with the disclosure after the statutory period provided under the Wealth-tax Act, the said return is an invalid one and non est in the eye of law and as such the assessment made by the Wealth-tax Officer on the basis of the said invalid return is illegal and invalid and is also barred by limitation.Since the additional ground is pure question of law, the same is admitted. In support of the plea raised in the additional ground Dr.Pal for the assessee contended that the assessments made are invalid and illegal inasmuch as the returns on the basis of which proceedings for assessments were taken, are not returns under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957('the Ac...
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 : (2002)83ITD111(Kol.)
1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) confirming mostly the additions made in the block assessment completed under Sections 143(3)/158BC(c) of the IT Act, 1961.2. The search and seizure operations took place in the premises of the assessee-company on 22nd Jan., 1997 and continued upto 23rd Jan.,1997.On the latter date, the search was temporarily concluded. A prohibitory order was passed under Section 132(3) on one Shri B.P. Agarwal (stated by the assesses to be unconnected with the assessee-company) in respect of the sealed premises comprising the office-room of the assessee-company, its filing cabinet and certain computer rooms. It may be mentioned in this connection that on the same dates simultaneous searches were carried out by the Department in respect of a number of concerns belonging to the same group.On the same date again, certain documents of the nature of two bunches of loose sheets were found from the office premises of the assess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2003)79TTJ(Kol.)915
1. The appeals filed by the assesses are directed against the common order dt. 16th Dec., 1998, passed by the CIT(A) for the asst. yrs.1985-86 and 1986-87.2. The main effective common ground in these cases is that the lower authorities refused to carry forward the business loss of the assessee for the asst. yrs. 1985-86 and 1986-87 for setting off with his business income for subsequent assessment year on the ground that the returns for the said assessment years were filed late.3. The learned counsel for the assessee stated that the lower authorities were not justified in refusing to carry forward the business loss claimed by the assessee. It was further contended that while refusing to carry forward the business loss the AO failed to take note of several judicial decisions to the effect that return of income filed under Section 139(4) should be deemed to have been filed under Section 139 of the IT Act and consequently, the business loss determined on the basis of such belated return ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2003)85ITD215(Kol.)
The appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the common order dated 16-12-1998 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87.The main effective common ground in these cases is that the lower authorities refused to carry forward the business loss of the assessee for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87 for setting off with his business income for subsequent assessment year on the ground that the returns for the said assessment years were filed late.The learned counsel for the assessee stated that the lower authorities were not justified in refusing to carry forward the business loss claimed by the assessee. It was further contended that while refusing to carry forward the business loss the assessing officer failed to take note of several judicial decisions to the effect that return of income filed under section 139(4) should be deemed to have been filed under section 139 of the Income Tax Act and consequently the business loss determine...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2004)88ITD35Cal
1. This Special Bench was constituted under Section 255(3) on the recommendation of the Division Bench of the Tribunal for considering the issue as to whether the amount received by the assessee in terms of the consent decree passed by the Small Causes Court is mesne profit and whether it is taxable as a capital receipt or revenue receipt. We have heard the parties and perused the record including the order of the "E" Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in I.T.A. Nos. 2690/C/97, 2953/C/94, 1413/C/97, 709-1 l/C/99, 1108/C/99 for assessment years 1990-91 to 1995-96 and 1997-98.2. The relevant facts briefly stated are that the appellant is a partnership firm. The appellant owned certain shares of Shree Nirmal Commercial Ltd. By virtue of its shareholdings, it had acquired the occupancy rights in respect of 21st Floor of 'Nirmal Building' at Mumbai along with car parking space No. 32 in the basement of the building. The appellant had entered into a Leave & Licence agreement i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2004)267ITR61(Kol.)
1. This Special Bench was constituted under Section 255(3) on the recommendation of the Division Bench of the Tribunal for considering the issue as to whether the amount received by the assessee in terms of the consent decree passed by the Small Causes Court is mesne profit and whether it is taxable as a capital receipt or revenue receipt. We have heard the parties and perused the record including the order of the "E" Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA Nos. 2690/C/97, 2953/C/94, 1413/C/97, 1413/C/97, 709-11/C/99 for asst. yrs. 1990-91 to 1995-96 and 1997-98.2. The relevant facts briefly stated are that the appellant is a partnership-firm. The appellant owned certain shares of Shree Nirmal Commercial Ltd. By virtue of its shareholdings, it had acquired the occupancy rights in respect of 21st floor of 'Nirmal Building' at Mumbai along with car parking space No. 32 in the basement of the building. The appellant had entered into a leave & licence agreement in respect ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2005)96TTJ(Kol.)1041
1. These 4 appeals of the assessee relating to asst. yrs. 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 involving some common issues are disposed of by this consolidated order.2. The appellant is a branch of ABN AMRO Bank NV incorporated in Netherlands, with limited liability having its original office at Singapore. In India, the appellant is registered as a scheduled bank in terms of Schedule II of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Act, 1934. The main activities of the appellant in India comprise of accepting deposits, giving loans, discounting/collection of bills, issue of letters of credit/guarantees, executing forward transaction in foreign currencies for importers/exporters, money market lending/borrowings, investment in securities, etc., in terms of the existing rules and regulations governing such transactions. In the years under consideration, the appellant had three branches in India at Mumbai, Kolkata and New Delhi. There is an agreement between India and Netherlands for Avoidance of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2008)112ITD57(Kol.)
1. This Special Bench has been constituted under Section 255(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Hon'ble President, I.T.A.T. in the case of M/s. I.T.C. Ltd. vide I.T.A. No. 1541 (Cal)/2000 for assessment year 1997-98 to consider the following questions: (1) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 38,64,1091-debited to year's revenue account as value of stores written off by holding that it is for the A.O. to prove that consumable stores had either not been used or individually costed less than Rs. 5,0001-ignoring, in the process, the findings in assessment that claim could not be established on record. (2) That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of building, furniture, fixture & fittings thereby contravening enunciation by the jurisdictional High Court to the defect that prohibition against guest house expenses s...
Tag this Judgment!