The answers involve the question of vital importance for the assessment of shipping companypanies up to the assessment year 1976 77 and how Section 44 B would be applicable.
There was an unabsorbed depreciation of about Rs.3,31,493/ in the Assessment Year 1953 54.
On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner affirmed the order of the Income Tax Officer.
The assessment year companycerned is 1958 59 for which the accounting year was the calender year 1957.
In the books of the assessee, the said sum of Rs.97,547/ was shown as a business loss brought forward from the earlier years.
The unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.97,547/ for the Assessment Year 1953 54 pertained to seven ships, which did number companye to India in the accounting year relevant to the Assessment Year 1958 59.
An amount of Rs.2,49,093/ was set off against the assessees income for the Assessment Year 1957 58.
the assessee accepted the said companytention.
Following the Instructions aforementioned, the Income Tax Officer disallowed depreciation of eight ships mentioned in his order on the ground that the said ships in the assessees fleet were of more than twenty years.
with him for the Respondent J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered M S.WILH, WILHELMSEN V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGAL I. J U D G M E N T P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. This appeal is preferred by the assessee on the basis of a certificate of fitness issued by the Calcutta High Court under Section 66A 2 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 the Act.
The assessment was made under the third method companytained in Rule 33 of the Indian Income Tax Rules 1922 and the Instructions issued thereunder.
We are number stating the facts relating to Question No.2 since it was answered by the High Court in favour of the assessee and because there is numberappeal by the Revenue against it.
The relevant facts, as stated in the judgment of the High Court, are the following Instead of furnishing the annual accounts for its world business for the Assessment Year 1958 59, the assessee furnished separate companyplete annual accounts for its Indian trade, that is to say, for all round voyages of each ship to and from the Indian Ports.
The appellant assessee is a Norwegian Shipping Company.
THE 9TH DAY OF JULY,1996 Present Honble Mr.Justice B.P.Jeevan Reddy Honble Mr.Justice S.B.Majmudar Manoj Arora, Ms.Shipra Ghose Jain, Manoj Pillai, Rahul P.Dave and D.N.Gupta, Advs.
The Income Tax Officer allowed the assessee to set off the said amount against the profits for the accounting year relevant to Assessment Year 1958 59.
This reference was also involved with the question whether the assessee would become disentitled to such depreciation in view of the said instructions companytained in the circular of the Central Board of Revenue.
Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Income Tax Officer companytended that allowing the set off of Rs.97,547/ by him was a mistake.
Ms.A.Subhashini, S.Rajappa,and N.Terdol, Advs.
The profits that were brought to tax ultimately were the net Indian profits of each ship employed in the Indian trade in the Accounting Year 1957.
Accordingly, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner enhanced the assessment by disallowing the said sum of Rs.97,547/ .
Three questions were referred under Section 66 2 of the Act at the instance of the Revenue.
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs.55,280/ made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner an account of excess depreciation in respect of the vessel Tortugas?
for the appellant Dr.V.Gaurishankar, Sr.
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the enhancement of Rs.97,547/ to the total income made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on account of wrong deduction af unabsorbed depreciation allowed by the Income Tax Officer?
