Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1985)12ITD647(Kol.)
1. The assessee is a firm. Its accounting year for the assessment year presently under consideration ended on Diwali 1979.2. The ITO granted depreciation to the assessee on its buses at the rate of 30 per cent.3. The assessee challenged the above order of the ITO before the Commissioner (Appeals) and claimed before him that depreciation on buses at the rate of 40 per cent be granted to the assessee in terms of amendment to item No. 9 of Group D forming part of Part I of Appendix I to the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules') by the Notification S.O.562(E), dated 24-7-1980, which came into force 'at once'. The above plea of the assessee was accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals). While granting the said relief to the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) made, inter alia, the following observations : The manner in which the notification has been inducted is unfortunate. Normally, in income-tax cases, changes are made with effect from a particular date. Ordinarily, date is the 1st April o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1986)19ITD1a(Kol.)
1. These two appeals, one by the department and the other by the assessee, are heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. We first take up the departmental appeal. The first ground in this appeal states that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not give an opportunity of being heard to the ITO and so the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was bad, illegal and void. Shri S.K. Lahiri, the learned representative for the department, explained before us that the ground means that the ITO was not given an opportunity of being heard by the Commissioner (Appeals) before he finalised the appeal. However, he was not able to establish before us that the ITO was not indeed informed about the hearing of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) in spite of the normal practice of the department to call for the records of the ITO and let him know the date of hearing of the appeal so that the ITO could be present at the time of hearing if he so chose.Under the circum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1988)26ITD1a(Kol.)
1. This appeal is by the assessee, a trust, assessed in the status of an "association of persons". The appeal relates to the assessment year 1981-82. The accounting period is the period 1-4-1980 to 31-3-1981. In the accounting period, the assessee-trust sold the shares of about 14 companies. The total price realised came to Rs. 63,52,565. The cost of these shares was Rs. 23,25,466. The difference which was the capital gain was Rs. 40,27,099. The assessee claimed that the aforesaid net consideration arising out of the sale of shares should be deemed to have been applied for charitable purposes since the assessee had acquired "another capital asset" within the meaning of the said term as occurring in Section 11(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The assessee had given particulars of the utilisation of the net consideration of Rs. 63.52 lakhs which have been reproduced in the assessment order and are as under : Deposit with Rs. 31,75,000 Bank. 31-5-1981 -do- Rs. 17,25,000 Rs. 49,00,000 D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
D.M. Misra, J. 1. These three Stay Applications are filed seeking waiver of predeposit of total Service Tax of Rs.3,37,759/- and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. At the outset, ld. Advocate for the Applicant submitted that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided their appeals on merits, but dismissed the same for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of Central Excise Act,1944, as applicable to Service Tax cases by virtue of Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. He, however, makes a fair offer to deposit 25% of the total service tax involved in the cases, and prayed that the matter be remitted to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits. 3. Ld. AR for the Revenue has no objection to the remand of the matters, as the issue has not been decided on merits. 4. We find that the Appeals itself can be disposed of, at this stage. Accordingly, with the consent of both sides, the Appeals are taken up for disposal. 5. We ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2002)82ITD788Cal
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the AO under Section 158BC arising out of search and seizure proceedings.2. A preliminary objection about the validity of the assessment under Chapter XIV-B was raised by the assessee by way of the following two questions : "1. That the provisions of Section 158BA of IT Act, 1961 were not applicable in this case because the requisition under Section 132A was made much before 30th June, 1995. The invoking of the provisions of Chapter XIV-B of the IT Act in the facts of this case is ab witio wrong, illegal and without jurisdiction, and the assessment framed under Chapter XIV-B is a nullity and liable to be quashed. 2. That the conditions precedent for initiating action under Section 132 or 132A did not exist and were not satisfied. Therefore, the issuance of Warrant of Authorisation under Section 132A and all proceedings taken and order passed in pursuance thereof are wrong, illegal and bad-in-law." 3. These two grounds were rais...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1986)15ITD508(Kol.)
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 11-11-1983 of the Commissioner passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') for the assessment year 1978-79.2. By this order, the Commissioner has set aside the entire assessment and directed the assessing officer to make a fresh assessment after giving proper opportunities of hearing to the assessee. The assessing officer in this case was the IAC who had made the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act on 19-11-1981.3. Shri P.T. Sanyal, the learned representative for the assessee, took us through the first of the 10 grounds taken in this appeal which reads as below ; That the order under Section 263 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax, in respect of the assessment order dated 19-11-1981 is bad and without jurisdiction since the said assessment order was passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and not by an Income-tax Officer.Shri P.T. Sanyal urged before us tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1986)18ITD551(Kol.)
1. The assessee is a company which is engaged in the manufacture of soft drinks. Prior to the assessment year 1979-80 it produced soft drinks under the brand names of Limca and Gold Spot. During the assessment year 1979-80, i.e., from 15-2-1978 it started manufacture of a new soft drink under the brand name of Thums Up and for marketing the new product it incurred advertisement and publicity expenses of Rs.2,23,208. The assessee contended before the IAC that no part of the advertisement and publicity expenditure incurred by it could be disallowed under Section 37(3A) in view of the provisions contained in Section 37(3D) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The IAG rejected the said contention by observing, inter alia, that no separate industrial undertaking had been set up by the assessee for the production of Thums Up as "the same industrial undertaking which was producing and continues to produce the other brand of beverage, namely, Gold Spot and Limca produces this brand Thums ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2003)86ITD384(Kol.)
1. This appeal is directed against order dt. 6th July, 1998, passed by learned CIT(A)-XI, Kolkata, in the matter of ascertainment of withholding tax liability from remittance made by the assessee to Mr.Frank Rusinko, an American scientist, on account of consultancy charges.2. The assessee's grievance is that the authorities below ought to have held that the remittance in question did not fasten any withholding tax liability on the assessee inasmuch as, on the peculiar facts of this case, the same is covered by the scope of expression 'independent personal services' under Article 15 of Indo-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). As a corollary to this proposition, the assessee has also assailed the action of the authorities below in holding that the remittance in question is covered by the scope of expression 'fees for included services' appearing in Article 12 of Indo-US DTAA. Although the assessee has taken seven grounds of appeal, these grounds are, in substance, only argume...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1983)6ITD183(Kol.)
1. The short controversy in this appeal is whether the sum of Rs. 41,271 dollars paid to the assessee-company by Hindusthan Paper Corpn.Ltd. is assessable to tax in India. The facts and circumstances surrounding the aforesaid payment may be noted first in order to appreciate the rival submissions. 2. The appellant is a non-resident Canadian company engaged in the business of consulting engineers. It entered into an agreement with Hindusthan Paper Corpn. Ltd., on 4-8-1975, in accordance with which the appellant company agreed to render to the Indian company "such technical assistance in the shape of supervision of detailed engineering, supervision of construction and erection, and assistance in start-up and commissioning of the said newsprint plant and/or factory. . . on the terms and conditions and in the manner hereinafter appearing. . . ". Article I of the agreement defined the nature of assistance. According to it, the appellant company were to render, furnish and/or make available...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1991)38ITD620(Kol.)
1. These two appeals filed by the assessce are against the common order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 14-7-1987 for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 for which the previous years ended on 31-3-1981 and 31-2-1982 respectively. As common points are involved in these appeals, they are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.3. The assessment for the assessment year 1981-82 was completed on 30-8-1983 on a total income of Rs. 1,89,320 under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In the assessment order the tax payable by the assessee was not determined and shown. However, in the notice of demand under Section 156 of the Act the "gross demand" was determined at Rs. 1,01,303. From the said "gross demand" advance tax paid under Section 210 of the Act at Rs. 1,12,410 was adjusted. Thus, the assessment resulted in a refund of Rs. 11,07,107. No interest under Section 214 of the Act was granted by the Income-tax Officer. The ITO disallowe...
Tag this Judgment!