9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Income-tax Officer? - 2. Whether, Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the loss of Rs. 84,261 on the sale of brick kiln was a capital loss and that it could not be set off against the business income but only against capital gains and that it had to be carried forward?" – Both questions are answered in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee - - - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly against capital gains and that it had to be carried forward?" The assessee is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act and the relevant assessment year is 1975-76. It had a bichromate plant installed in the assessment year 1972-73 of which a furnace in the form of a kiln was a part. Depreciation was being allowed on the assets of the plant including kiln. A part of the plant was di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the said authority held that the reassessment was on the basis of the report of the audit party and hence in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 IIR 996, this could not be regarded as information under section 147(b). Hence, the reassessment was set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n within the meaning of section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act. However, if the audit points out certain facts which were not in the knowledge of the Income-tax Officer when he made the original assessment it would constitute information under section 147(b) vide Zoraster and Co. v. CIT [1987] 163 ITR 858 (Raj); Labella Construction Co. v. CIT [1994] 207 ITR 657 (Guj); R. Madhavan Nair v. CIT [1976] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
