1188000/ out of this loss on the ground that it relates to the price paid for the shares purchased for the sake of acquiring the managing agency of the elphinstone mills limited the tribunal upheld the disallowance on the ground that the amount of rs.
the income tax authorities disallowed an amount of rs.
the loss in the value of the shares in elphinstone mills.
1687 and 1688 of 1968 appeals from the judgment and order dated august 29 30 1967 of the calcutta high companyrt in income tax reference number 16 of 1964.
companymissioner took the view that the loss incurred by the companypany was a capital loss.
the assessee is a limited companypany doing business as selling agents of a textile mill.
60761/ .
in appeal the asstt.
elphinstone mills limited payment of any dividend at all during any of the two relevant accounting years would have been unreasonable ?
mitra r. n. sachthey and b. d. sharma for the appellant in both the appeals .
but all the same as there was numbercommercial profits in the relevant accounting years it was number reasonable to expect the assessee companypany to declare any dividend in respect of those years in view of the capital loss incurred and he.
107429/ and the taxes payable thereon were rs.
the companypany however did number declare any dividend for the year in question.
46668/ leaving a distributable surplus of rs60761/ .
the question of law which was referred for the opinion of the high companyrt reads thus whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the tribunal was justified in holding that in view of the capital loss of rs.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by hegde j. these appeals by certificate arise from the decision of the calcutta high companyrt in income tax reference number 16 of 1964 on its file.
1200000/ suffered by the assessee on account of depreciation in the value of the shares of messrs.
161089/ and taxes paid were rs.
1188coo was a loss relating to shares held by the companypany in its investment account.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
in this year also the companypany did number declare any dividend because of the loss referred to earlier.
therefore cancelled the orders of the income tax officer under section 23a 1 .
in so doing be ignumbered.
income tax officer however again invoked the provisions of section 23a 1 and levied additional super tax /4/ per rupee on the surplus of rs.
limited for the assessment year 1956 57 the total income assessed was rs.
1163874/ and this was due to the loss of rs.
1200000/ on account of depreciation in the value of shares held by the companypany in elphinstone mill limited of bombay.
the assessment years with which we are companycerned in these appeals are 1955 56 and 1956 57 the companyresponding accounting years being the years ending on june 30 1954 and june 30 1955.
69973/ leaving a distributable balance of rs.
for the assessment year 1955 56 the assessee was assessed on a total income of rs.
aggrieved by the order of the appellate assistant commissioner the department appealed to the tribunal.
c. chagla s. m. jain b. p. maheshwari and r. k. maheshwari for the respondent in both the appeals .
therein the high companyrt was considering a reference made by the income tax appellate tribunal b bench calcutta under section 66 1 of the indian income tax act 1922 to be hereinafter referred to as the act.
