Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT West Bengal
Reported in : (2003)79TTJCal725
1. Grounds No. 1 and 17 in this appeal filed by the assessee are of general nature and hence they do not deserve any specific adjudication.2. Grounds No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 relate to the question of taxability of the sale considerations in respect of shares on the investment portfolio. The assessee has claimed that in view of there being no cost of acquisition for the bonus shares and no cost of improvement in respect of the original shares (which had certainly been acquired by the assessee by incurring certain monetary costs), there would be no case for charging the profits/gains arising out of the transfer of both the types of shares to capital gains tax.This issue has been discussed in great detail in our order dt. 29th March, 2000, in the case of Shekhawati Rajputana Trading Co. (P) Ltd. (ITA No. 2934/Cal/1995 : Asst. yr. 1992-93). The facts of the present case are exactly similar to this in the said case. Arguments have also been put forward by the representatives of both the sides in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT West Bengal
Reported in : (2003)79TTJCal746
1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue and there are eight grounds of appeal as follows : (i) For that learned CIT(A) was wrong in holding that excess of sale proceeds over purchase price or adjusted purchase price of shares was taxable capital gains under Section 45 of the IT Act, 1961. (ii) "For that learned CIT(A) was wrong in holding that sale of bonus shares resulted into taxable capital gains under Section 45 of the IT Act." (iii) "For that learned CIT(A) was wrong in confirming disallowance of service charges of Rs. 1,58,600." (iv) "For that learned CIT(A) was wrong in confirming disallowance of travelling expenses of Rs, 55,044." (v) "For that learned CIT(A) was wrong in confirming levy of interest under ss. 234A, 234B and 234C of the IT Act." (vi) "For that learned CIT(A) was wrong in not admitting additional grounds and confirming the assessment order and demand notice which were not in accordance with the law." (vii) "For that learned AO may be directed to allow refun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT West Bengal
Reported in : (2003)261ITR17Cal
1. This Special Bench is constituted under Section 255(4) of the IT Act, 1961 to decide the following issue : "Whether for the purpose of computation of the amount of deduction under Section 80HHC by applying the formula as provided in Clause (a) of Sub-section (3), of the said section, it is necessary to exclude the amounts of excise duty, octroi, sales-tax, etc. from the figure of total turnover of the business of the assesses for the purpose of bringing in a parity between the numerator i.e. "export turnover" and the denominator i.e. "total turnover" in the said formula inasmuch as, export turnover does not include such taxes and duties like excise duty, sales- tax, octroi, etc. which are not leviable on exportable goods ?" Though a reference to Clause (a) of Sub-section (3) of Section 80HHC is made in the question which is applicable Where the export out of India is of goods and merchandise manufactured or processed by the assessee, the real controversy in this case arises under C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT West Bengal
Reported in : (2002)258ITR121Cal
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year 1991-92.2. The appeal of the Revenue is out of time by 11 days. The Department has filed an application for condonation of delay.3. The learned Authorised Representative of the assessee opposed the application of the Department for condonation of delay. Accordingly, we heard the application for condonation of delay.4. The learned Departmental Representative, in his submission, placed reliance on the contents of the application filed for condonation of delay and requested that the delay be condoned and the appeal be heard on the merits. It was stated that there was delay in the receipt of authorisation from the office of the Commissioner of Income-tax and the same was received on April 28, 1997, whereas the last day for filing the appeal as per Section 253(3) expired on April 19, 1997. The appeal papers were prepared on April 28, 1997, and April 29, 1997, and, hence, the appeal was filed on April 30, 1997. On the other h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT West Bengal
Reported in : (2004)268ITR129Cal
1. The Department has filed this appeal for the asst. yr. 1993-94 against the order of learned CIT(A) dt. 31st Oct., 1996, on the following ground : "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A)-IV, Calcutta, erred in directing to allow depreciation on the additional liability arising to the assessee out of the difference in the rate of exchange of rupee." 2. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 56,15,081 being depreciation on exchange fluctuations capitalised during the year in respect of foreign exchange loans taken for purchase of plant and machinery. The assessee stated that the deduction was based on the additional liability arising out of difference in rate of exchange of rupee and in support of his claim relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v.Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Ltd. (1994) 207 ITR 718 (Cal). The AO rejected the claim of the assessee and added back the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT West Bengal
Reported in : (2001)80ITD25Cal
These two appeals filed by the department are against to separate orders of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 24-8-2000 deleting the penalty imposed under section 221 for not depositing in time the taxes deducted at source under sections 193 and 194A respectively for the financial year 1996-97.The issues involved in these two appeals are common and as such, the appeals were heard together and a common order is being passed for the sake of convenience.The ground taken by the department in these two appeals is that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in cancelling the penalty under section 221 of the Act on the ground that interest was paid by the assessee.Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee deducted a same of Rs. 38,79,749 on payments made by way of interest on securities under section 193 of the Act and a sum of Rs. 98,94,225 from the amount paid by way of interest other than interest on securities under section 194A for the period ending on 31-3-1997. The assessee act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT West Bengal
1. This appeal, filed by the revenue, is directed against the order dated 5th January, 1994 passed by the learned DCIT(A) - Range IX, Calcutta, in the matter of penalty under section 221(1) for the financial year 1990-91. Revenue is aggrieved that the DC1T(A) erred in deleting penalty of Rs. 15,000 charged under section 221 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. First, the relevant material facts. Admittedly, the only lapse on the part of the assessee tax deductor was that he did not take into account the increase in surcharge, effected vide Finance (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 1990 promulgated on 15-10-1990, which resulted in a surcharge on TDS @ 15 per cent in the case of companies, as against 8 per cent surcharge in force upto that point of time. The assessee's case is that it was simply an Inadvertent error on the part of the assessee which was solely attributable to the fact that the person responsible for TDS work missed this increase in surcharge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT West Bengal
1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) for assessment year 1992-93. An interesting issue has been raised in this appeal, viz., (i) where the instrument providing equal shares in the undivided income and property is an AOP, the shares of whose members are definite and ascerlainable; and (ii) whether an AOP whose members' shares are definite and ascertainable is to be assessed under section 167B(2) or the individual members are to be assessed under section 26 of the Act.2. Five co-owners acquired a property consisting of 8 storeyed building -The ground floor is used as godown and all the upper floors consisting of four flats space in each floor were allotted to and used by the four co-owners. The 5th co-owner has not been allotted any flat for residential purposes. The registered deed provides the equal share of the five co-owners. The Assessing Officer on these facts came to the conclusion that the individual member's residential portion is uneven and, acco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT West Bengal
Reported in : (2001)79ITD539Cal
This is an appeal by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) for assessment year 1992-93. An interesting issue has been raised in this appeal, viz., (i) where the instrument providing equal shares in the undivided income and property is an Association of Persons, the shares of whose members are definite and ascertainable; and (ii) whether an Association of Persons whose members shares are definite and ascertainable, is to be assessed under section 167B(2) or the individual members are to be assessed under section 26 of the Act.Five co-owners acquired a property consisting of 8 storeyed buildingThe ground floor is used as godown and all the upper floors consisting of four flats space in each floor were allotted to and used by the four co-owners. The 5th co-owner has not been allotted any flat for residential purposes. The registered deed provides the equal share of the five co-owners. The assessing officer on these facts came to the conclusion that the individual me...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT West Bengal
1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) for asst. yr. 1992-93. An interesting issue has been raised in this appeal, viz., (i) where the instrument providing equal shares in the undivided income and property is an AOP, the shares of whose members are definite and ascertainable; and (ii) whether an AOP whose members' shares are definite and ascertainable is to be assessed under Section 167B(2) or the individual members are to be assessed under Section 26 of the Act.2. Five co-owners acquired a property consisting of 8 storeyed building -The ground floor is used as godown and all the upper floors consisting of four fiats space in each floor were allotted to and used by the four co-owners. The 5th co-owner has not been allotted any flat for residential purposes. The registered deed provides the equal share of the five co-owners. The AO on these facts came to the conclusion that the individual member's residential portion is uneven and, accordingly, it was an AO...
Tag this Judgment!