Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

WTO Ward-7 (4) , Kolkata Versus S. Jafkay (India) Limited

2015 (11) TMI 1189 - ITAT KOLKATA

Violation of the provision of the Rule 46A of IT Rule, 1962 - Non confrontation of contract notes evidencing sale of shares by the Assessee through a broker at Mumbai - Held that:- conclusions of the CWT(A) are not based only on the evidence regarding share transactions carried out by the Assessee at Mumbai. The payment of salary to Mr.Mukherjee and his correspondence and reports on various business information obtained from Mumbai and sent to Kolkata have not been disputed by the WTO. The payme .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ecord is not disputed by the Revenue. The evidence of payment of land revenue only supports the document already on record. Besides the above, the WTO did not agree with the stand of the Assessee mainly on the basis that in the past the land in question was considered as “Asset”. In our view therefore the conclusions of the CWT(A) therefore cannot be said to be erroneous or based only on the evidence of payment of land revenue to the Government. - Decided against Revenue. - WTA Nos. 33-38/Kol/20 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in excluding Flat at Mumbai valued of ₹ 23,05,730/- on the basis of assessee s submission without calling for a Remand Report from the A.O thereby violating the provision of the Rule 46A of IT Rule, 1962. 3. The Assessee is a company. It owned a property at Mumbai viz., Flat in Rishikesh Apartments, No.4, Veer Savakar Marg, Mumbai-400 028, hereinafter referred to as the Mumbai property . The question before the Wealth Tax Officer (WTO) was as to whether the aforesaid flat should be conside .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

otherwise including a farm house situated within twenty-five kilometers from local limits of any municipality (whether known as Municipality, Municipal Corporation or by any other name) or a Cantonment Board, but does not include - (1) a house meant exclusively for residential purposes and which is allotted by a company to an employee or an officer or a director who is in whole time employment, having a gross annual salary of less than five lakh rupees; (2) any house for residential or commerci .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

xclusion clause (3) of Sec.2(ea)(i) of the Act. 6. The plea of the Assessee before the WTO was that the Assessee had employed a manager by name Sri Subrata Mukherjee posted in Mumbai who used the property as company office. He was mainly posted at Mumbai to gather maximum business information. He used to vist many business offices of real estate developers, real estate agents, share broker firms, commodities broker firms and finance, investment and portfolio consultancy firms periodically and ga .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rty in Mumbai was used for business activities and therefore it was not Ässet which can be included while computing the Net Wealth of the Assessee. 7. The WTO did not accept the plea of the Assessee He was of the view that the evidence produced by the Assessee did not show that the Assessee actually carried on business transaction with other parties. The WTO was also of the view that the Assessee did not have a trade license to carry on business in Mumbai. The WTO therefore held that the pr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

see carried on share trading transactions at Mumbai through the broker located in that city. Conveyance expenses of Mr.Mukherjee incurred at Mumbai were reimbursed to him monthly and these expenses were allowed in the income tax proceedings. Mr.Mukherjee had been paid a salary of ₹ 1,23,642. On the basis of the above circumstances, the CWT(A) came to the conclusion that the property at Mumbai was used for the purpose of business of the Assessee and therefore it was not Ässet which can .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssee at Mumbai without confronting such evidence to the WTO and calling for a remand report from him. The learned AR relied on the order of the CWT(A). 11. After considering the rival contentions, we find that the conclusions of the CWT(A) are not based only on the evidence regarding share transactions carried out by the Assessee at Mumbai. The payment of salary to Mr.Mukherjee and his correspondence and reports on various business information obtained from Mumbai and sent to Kolkata have not be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng sale of shares by the Assessee through a broker at Mumbai was not confronted to the WTO. In our view de hors the said documentary evidence, the evidence before the WTO amply proved the claim of the Assessee. In the given circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the appeals by the Revenue are without any merit. Consequently, they are dismissed. 12. The second common ground of appeal raised by the Revenue in appeals for AY 06-07 to 08-09 reads as follows: Whether the CIT(A) is justifi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version