Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2003)79TTJ(Kol.)915
..... losses of rs. 1,51,520 and rs. 48,977 for the asst. yrs. 1953-54 and 1954-55, respectively. no notice had been served on the company under section 22(2) of the act. the ito held that since the returns had been filed after the statutory period the company was not entitled to carry forward the losses for both ..... to the following year(s) under section 24(2) of the 1922 act, corresponding to the restriction placed under section 80 of 1961 act, w.e.f. 1st april, 1985.24. as pointed out earlier, section 80 of 1961 act belongs to an area of substantive provisions of the act. under the 1922 act there was no restriction corresponding to restrictions placed under section 80 of ..... to be overlooked. as pointed out earlier, their lordships of the supreme court found that there was no restriction under section 24(2) in conflict to the provisions of section 22(3) of 1922 act for the purpose of determination of the loss and for its carry forward and set off to the following year(s). that being so, in my .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2003)85ITD215(Kol.)
..... losses of rs. 1,51,520 and rs. 48,977 for the assessment years 1953-54 and 1954-55 respectively.no notice had been served on the company under section 22(2) of the act. the income tax officer held that since the returns had been filed after the statutory period the company was not entitled to carry forward the ..... to the following year(s) under section 24(2) of the 1922 act, corresponding to the restriction placed under section 80 of 1961 act with effect from 1-4-1985.as pointed out earlier, section 80 of 1961 act belongs to an area of substantive provisions of the act. under the 1922 act there was no restriction corresponding to restrictions placed under section 80 of ..... to be overlooked. as pointed out earlier, their lordships of the supreme court found that there was no restriction under section 24(2) in conflict to the provisions of section 22(3) of 1922 act for the purpose of determination of the loss and for its carry forward and set off to the following year(s). that being so, in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1965]16STC197(Cal)
..... of india, various state governments and approved autonomous bodies. the director of disposals (united states transfer directorate) refused to get registered under the bengal finance (sales tax) act, 1941, on the ground that he was not a dealer. on 9th november, 1955, the commercial tax officer, esplanade charge of the directorate of ..... bengal and is, therefore, a 'dealer' within the meaning of section 2(c) of the bengal finance (sales tax) act, 1941? 2. the facts of this case are as follows: the directorate ..... , j. 1. this is a reference under section 21(3) of the bengal finance (sales tax) act, 1941. the question referred to this court is:whether the director of supplies and disposals, united states transfer directorate, having his office situated at no. 6, esplanade east, calcutta, carries on the business of selling goods in west .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1970]75ITR327(Cal)
..... section, it was irrelevant to inquire whether they contained a capital element, and that the rentcharges were not payments of a capital nature within section 14(1) of the finance (no. 2) act, 1940, and were thus deductible for the purposes of profits tax. the crown appealed :-'held, allowing the appeal, (1) that the company had purchased a capital asset ..... only other issue before us we understood to be that deduction of the rentcharges in computing the assessable profits was prohibited by section 14(1) of the finance (no. 2) act, 1940 : the rentcharge being (it was contended) payments made to secure capital assets.'then they continued : the only assets which might be said to have been ..... as it was so used, it is not deductible. the revenue rely on two sub-section in the income tax act, 1952, which they say prohibit the deduction. the first is section 137(a) which says that no sum shall be deducted in respect of 'any disbursements or expenses, not being money wholly and exclusively laid out .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2006)5SOT17(Kol.)
..... also alleged that the assessing officer failed to examine whether tax had been deducted from the payments made to the certificate-holders.there is no dispute to the fact that section 263 of the act permits the cit to revise an order of assessment as being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue if the assessing officer ..... of revenue, the learned cit, kol-i, was not justified in passing orders under section 263 on this ground.8. that, without prejudice to ground nos. 1 and 2 above, since the purported show cause letters dated 18-3-2005 and 29-3-2005 referred to only two issues viz., 'return to certificate-holders' to the extent ..... said sum of rs. 657 crores is patently illegal and ab initio void, having infringed the principles of natural justice.(ii) without prejudice to the contentions preferred in para. (1) above, the order passed under section 263 of the act infringes the principles of natural justice also on other logic or grounds. as has been stated earlier, in the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1973]32STC419(Cal)
..... for the period from 12th november, 1957, to 2nd april, 1958, by his order dated 11th december, 1958, allowed the claim for deduction under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the bengal finance (sales tax) act, 1941, to the extent of rs. 1,41,537.71 in respect of sales made to m/s. sanitary ware distributors between 30th november, 1957 and ..... diligently and honestly made or done what he was required to do, should not be made liable under the provisions of the act in this case, under section 11(2) or under section 22 of the bengal finance (sales tax) act. it appears that in a judgment of this court this aspect of the matter was also considered, namely, in the case ..... 31st december, 1957, on the basis of certain declaration in form no. xxiv received by the petitioner from the purchasing dealer. the purchasing dealer's, viz., m/s. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1960]38ITR35(Cal)
..... been signed but had not yet been given statutory effect.the agreement (one of many agreements of this character) was made under the provisions of section 51 of the finance (no. 2) act, 1945, which provided as follows : '(1) if his majesty by order in council declares that arrangements specified in the order have been made with the government of any ..... 1952, are valid assessments; if, on the other hand, it does apply, then, by virtue of section 51 of the finance (no. 2) act, 1945, the measure of liability under the relief order prevails and supersedes the liability under rule 3 of case iii and, accordingly, the seven assessments in question ..... , made the concession that the existence of the exempted income makes a difference to the calculations.'in the course of his speech viscount simon said : 'section 15 of the finance act, 1915, was, it would seem, aimed at meeting this difficulty' - that was the difficulty of taxing insurance companies situate as the respondent company in this case was, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1954]25ITR365(Cal)
..... the government.counsel submitted that the crown acquired the undertaking of the company and that rule ii(2) has no application to such a case. he put his submission in this way. 'the queen is the monarch legislating with the other estates. the finance acts are all addressed to subjects; charging orders cannot include the crown itself. therefore the word ..... a judgment of my own.hodson l.j. - the main question is this appeal is whether in rule 11(2) of the rules applicable to cases i and ii of sch. d to the income tax act, 1918 (as substituted by the finance act, 1926, section 32 (i)], the word 'person' includes the crown. if the word 'person' includes the ..... ordinary way. when the act has been construed, the crown is entitled to set up its right against the construction it prejudiced thereby, and the construction will, when necessary, yield to the prerogative. there is nothing in rule 11(2) which interferes with the rights of the crown, so that there is no conflict between the statute and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1992]196ITR530(Cal)
..... on the provision of plant for the purposes of the trade, so as to entitle it to first-year allowance under section 41(1) of the finance act, 1971. the special commissioners rejected the claim holding that the partnerships were entered into with fiscal motives as their paramount object and could not therefore have ..... never suggested that the taxpayer changed his intention after acquisition so that the site became trading stock at a later date; and on that basis there was no adventure in the nature of trade.the commissioners, however, having heard evidence from the taxpayer and his accountant, concluded that, notwithstanding the fact that the ..... propositions. (1) if, on objective analysis, the transaction has all the characteristics of trading, that analysis must prevail over the subjective intention of the taxpayer. (2)if, on objective analysis, the transaction is equivocal, the subjective intention of the taxpayer is relevant in weighing up the circumstances, and concluding whether it is a .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1967]20STC528(Cal)
..... defects in the declaration in form xxiv furnished to justify disallowance of the deduction claimed under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the bengal finance (sales tax) act, 1941, in respect of sales of rs. 11,195-3-0 made to messrs lakhi stores;(viii) whether there are admissible evidence and ..... ) whether there are admissible evidence and vital defects in the declaration in form xxiv furnished to justify disallowance of the deduction claimed under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the bengal finance (sales tax) act, 1941, in respect of sales of rs. 6,391-12-0 made to messrs biswanath choudhury;(vii) whether there are admissible evidence and vital ..... )(ii) of the bengal finance (sales tax) act, 1941, in respect of sales of rs. 30,031 made to messrs basudev bhandar.6. now, the questions may be classified into two groups. in questions nos. 1 to 5, the point for consideration is whether on account of defects in the declaration forms, the claim for deduction made by .....
Tag this Judgment!