Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1990 (11) TMI 48

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the profit or loss of the promoters for the period January 1, 1969, to December 31, 1969, was the profit or loss of the company ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in setting aside the assessment for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 with a direction to the Income-tax Officer to redo the assessment? (iv) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-company was entitled to development rebate and also relief under section 80J under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (v) Whether the Tribunal was justified .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... icate of commencement of business was issued to the assessee only on January 1, 1970, and that being so, it could not have carried on business prior to the said date. He also found that the business carried on by the promoters and the business carried on by the assessee-company are different. Accordingly, he disallowed the loss said to have been incurred prior to January 1, 1970. The assessee had also claimed development rebate and the benefit under section 80J. These claims were also disallowed on the ground that the machines purchased and used by the promoters for their business were not new machines and hence the assessee-company could not claim the said benefits. Yet another claim put forward by the assessee for grant of depreciation at .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... poration, passed a resolution adopting the action of the promoters, the profit and loss of the said promoters is the profit and loss of the assessee company. The Tribunal, however, observed that the filing of one return by the assessee for a period of 18 months is not in accordance with law. It held that there ought to be two separate assessments, one for the calendar year 1969 and the other for the period January 1, 1970, to June 30, 1970. With this direction, the matter was remitted to the Income-tax Officer. So far as the development rebate and benefit under section 80J were concerned, it was held allowable on the above finding. The Tribunal also found that the product of the assessee-company is "art silk" and, therefore, it is entitled .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nable or that it acted perversely in drawing the inference it did from the above two documents. Unless we are able to say that the Tribunal's finding is perverse, we cannot interfere in the matter. We may mention that the decision of this court in CIT v. Bijli Cotton Mills Ltd. [1953] 23 ITR 278, fully supports the decision of the Tribunal. In that case too, a firm entered into an agreement to purchase a mill for a company which they intended to float and obtained possession of the mill on December 10, 1942, on behalf of the company. The company was floated on December 11, 1943, and the sale deed was executed in its favour on January 2, 1945. The company resolved to accept the profit made before its incorporation and treat the promoters as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e assessment in respect of a period of 18 months (January 1, 1969 to June 30, 1970) was not in accordance with law and that there ought to be two assessments, one for the period January 1, 1969, to December 31, 1969, and the other for the period January 1, 1970, to June 30, 1970. This finding of the Tribunal has been accepted by the assessee and has not been questioned by it. The only clarification which we need make is that the assessment year relevant to the calendar year 1969 would be 1970-71. The previous year corresponding to calendar year 1969 would not be relevant either for the assessment year 1971-72 or for 1972-73, which were the only two assessment years concerned before the Tribunal. While redoing the assessment for the assessme .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates