| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1980 SLG 756 1980 SLD 756 (1980) 122 ITR 490 |
Calcutta High Court
IT REFERENCE No. 132 OF 1977
DIPAK KUMAR SEN AND BIMAL CHANDRA BASAK, JJ.
Dr. Debi Pal and Pranab Pal for the Applicant. Suhas Sen and Ajit Sengupta for the
Respondent
IT REFERENCE No. 132 OF 1977
DIPAK KUMAR SEN AND BIMAL CHANDRA BASAK, JJ.
Dr. Debi Pal and Pranab Pal for the Applicant. Suhas Sen and Ajit Sengupta for the
Respondent
Alkali and Chemical Corporation of India Ltd.
v.
Commissioner of IncomE tax
Law:
Section:
Section 13, read with rule 4 of section II to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act 1964 - Rectification of mistakes - Assessment year 1967-68 - ITO while computing capital base did not make any reduction under rule 4 in respect of amount as deduction under section 80E of Income-tax Act, 1961, as it stood then - Later ITO purporated to rectify his order under section 13 on ground that part of projects of assessee attributable to priority industry and deductible under section 80E of Income Tax Act, 1961 were not includible in total income of assessee as computed under 1961 Act, and therefore, under rule 4(a) proportionate reduction should have been made in computing assessee's capital for assessment of surtax - Tribunal upheld rectification order passed by STO - Whether Tribunal was not justified in holding that omission to make a proportionate reduction of capital base under rule 4 was a mistake apparent from record in original assessment proceedings and ITO had jurisdiction to make such proportionate reduction of capital base by his subsequent order under section 13 - Held, yes Section 13, of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 - Rectification of mistakes apparent from record - Assessment year 1967-68 - While computing capital of assessee-company, ITO included under rule 3 certain amount being company's share capital during relevant accounting year by issue of bonus shares from out of assessee's general reserve - While taking note of increase in share capital by issue of bonus shares corresponding decrease in amount of reserve was overlooked by ITO - Accordingly, by order passed under section 13, ITO rectified original assessment - Tribunal upheld order of rectification passed by ITO - Whether failure of ITO to make proportionate reduction of reserve from capital base became an additional controversy which could be rectified by subsequent order of ITO passed under section 13 - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, rectification of capital base on said count under section 13, was sustainable - Held, yes FACTS In the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68, the ITO while computing the capital base did not make any reduction under rule 4 of the Rules of the Second…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492