Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2006)280ITR74(Kol.)
1. This appeal preferred by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) dated 25.1.2005 for the asstt. year 2001-02 taking following grounds of appeal: 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in fact and in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3,70,628/- made on account of depreciation. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be reversed and that of the A.O. restored.2. The Ld. Departmental Representative submits that it was found by the Assessing Officer that in this year the assessee has claimed depreciation on colour Xerox machine @ 60% which is admissible on computer considering the Xerox machine as good as computer. He further submits that the assessee was asked to show cause as to why 25% of depreciation should not be allowed in stead of 60% claimed by the assessee. But the assessee has failed to file any explanation, therefore, the Assessing Officer has allowed 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2006)5SOT17(Kol.)
The assessee is in appeal against the order passed under section 263 by the CIT, Kolkata, for the assessment year 2000-01.The CIT held that the order passed by the assessing officer in the assessee's case for the assessment year 2000-01 under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 31-3-2003 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue insofar as the assessing officer has not conducted the necessary inquiry during the course of the assessment proceedings which culminated in passing of the said order under section 143(3) of the Act with reference to two sums, namely, Rs. 657 crores and Rs. 584 crores and, thereafter the CIT proceeded to set aside the said order passed by the assessing officer under section 143(3) of the Act with the directions to the assessing officer to conduct full verification and examination of the said sums after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee."l. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT, Kol-I, erred in assu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2005)96TTJ(Kol.)834
1. The assessee is in appeal against the order passed under Section 263 by the CIT, Kolkata, for the asst. yr. 2000-01.2. The CIT held that the order passed by the AO in the assessee's case for the asst. yr. 2000-01 under Section 143(3) of the Act, dt. 31st March, 2003 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue insofar as the AO has not conducted the necessary inquiry during the course of the assessment proceedings which culminated in passing of the said order under Section 143(3) of the Act with reference to two sums, namely, Rs. 657 crores and Rs. 584 crores and, thereafter the CIT proceeded to set aside the said order passed by the AO under Section 143(3) of the Act with the directions to the AO to conduct full verification and examination of the said sums after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. "1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT, Kol-I, erred in assuming jurisdiction and passing an order under Section 263 of ...
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 : (2005)95TTJ(Kol.)1030
1. This appeal by the assessee for the asst. yr. 1995-96 is directed against the order of the CIT(A). The appeal is barred by limitation by 3 days and the assessee has filed a condonation application with a request to condone the delay in presenting the appeal before the Tribunal. The counsel for the assessee-submitted that, in fact, the appeal in the prescribed Form No. 36 was filed in time on the last day of filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. However, due to some mistake in computer printing, 1-2 lines at bottom of the page of Form No. 36 were not printed and, therefore, the assessee filed a revised Form No. 36 with enclosures before the Tribunal on 30th Nov., 2004, and the delay may be condoned. The learned Departmental Representative has opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee. He stated that the assessee should have taken due precautions in filing the correct Form No. 36 before the Tribunal. We have considered the rival submissions. Considering the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2005)95TTJ(Kol.)1017
1. There are three appeals, all filed by the assessee for each of the asst. yr. 1998-99 (ITA No. 59/Kol/2004), 1999-2000 (ITA No.667/Kol/2004) and 2000-01 (ITA No. 788/Kol/2004). Since the grounds involved in the above three appeals are common, the same were heard together and disposed of by this consolidated order.2. Ground No. 1 for the appeals relating to the asst. yrs. 1998-99 and 1999-00 relates to the allowability of expenditure incurred by the assessee to protect goodwill. The amounts of disallowance involved for the asst. yr. 1998-99 and 1999-2000 are Rs. 52.79 crores and Rs. 2.02 crores, respectively. The facts involved in the said common ground are that the assessee is a company incorporated in India and engaged in various business activities, e.g., manufacture and sale of cigarettes, running of hotels, etc. ITC Classic Finance Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "ITC Classic") was a company engaged in the business of financial services. The assessee used to hold a substantial ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2005)94ITD211(Kol.)
1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the CIT (A)-XL, Kolkata dated 27.11.2003. In the Memorandum of appeal the appellant has taken the following effects grounds: - 1. "The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that payment by the appellant for the services rendered by M/s. Wet Enterprises, Inc. ("Wet Enterprise") under the Agreement are covered as a taxable payment under Article 12 of the DTAA between India and USA at 15% of US$ 357,000" 2. "He erred in not appreciating that under the provisions of the tax treaty between India and USA ("tax treaty") the amount of USD 357,000 payable by the appellant to Wet Enterprises was not taxable in India" 3. "The learned CIT(A) erred in not providing the appellant with the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer while determining the taxability of the payments, in the order passed under Section 195(2) of the Income-tax Act." 4. "He erred in not appreciating in the correct perspective the submissions made by the appellant." 5. "Each one of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2005)94ITD89(Kol.)
1. Under Section 255(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act), the Hon'ble President of the Tribunal has constituted this Special Bench to consider the following question : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards development fee and fees for operating on the floor paid to Calcutta Stock Exchange Association, towards admission fee and technology cost paid to OTC Exchange of India and towards non-adjustable deposit for membership subscription and deposit for Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) paid to National Stock Exchange of India could be treated as revenue or capital expenditure ?" 2.1. The appeal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal involved several issues, one of which was whether the assessee was entitled to get deduction in computing the total income of the assessee. The payment of Rs. 70,00,000 and Rs. 1,50,000 on account of development fee and fee for operating on the floor to Calcutta Stock...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2005)60SCL59NULL
1. Under Section 255(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act), the Hon'ble President of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has constituted this Special Bench to consider the following question:- "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards development fee and fees for operating on the floor paid to Calcutta Stock Exchange Association, towards admission fee and technology cost paid to OTC Exchange of India and towards Non-adjustable deposit for Membership subscription and deposit for Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) paid to National Stock Exchange of India could be treated as revenue or capital expenditure?" 2.1 The appeal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal involved several issues, one of which was whether the assessee was entitled to get deduction in computing the total income of the assessee. The payment of Rs. 70,00,000 and Rs. 1,50,000 on account of development fee and fee for operating on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2005)93ITD535(Kol.)
1. The assessee is in appeal against the assessment order made by the Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3)/254/158BC dated 28.03.03 for the block period from 1.4.95 to 3.11.95.2. Ground No. 1 is general in nature and need not to be decided separately. Hence, it is rejected. "For that the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer, on 28.03.03, Under Section 143(3)/154/158BC, for the aforesaid BLOCK PERIOD, in reassessment proceedings is barred by limitation, as per the amended provisions of Section 153(2A) of the I.T.Act'61, and hence liable to be quashed." 4. To appreciate the controversy raised by the assessee in this ground No. 2, it is necessary to state the facts of the case leading to the impugned fresh assessment order made by the Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3)/254/158BC on 28.03.03.5. In this case, the original block assessment was made on 29.11.96 Under Section 143(3)/158BC determining the total undisclosed income at Rs. 1,34,13,424/-. The original block assessment w...
Tag this Judgment!