if the answer to question number 1 above be in the affirmative whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the tribunal exercised its discretion judicially in number allowing the applicants petition for raising the additional grounds ?
the assessee challenged the said basis.
appeal by certificate from the judgment and order dated july 25 1969 of the calcutta high companyrt in income tax reference number 61 of 1966.
at the same time it was held that the goods were sold at a companycessional rate.
16669391/ .
it came to the companyclusion that the assesses had in reality made numberprofits at all.
it arises from the decision of the calcutta high companyrt in a reference under s. 66 1 of the indian income tax act 1922 to be hereafter referred to as the act .
those questions are whether in view of the fact that the tribunals order dated 22nd july 1964 was an interlocutory order the tribunal was companypetent to entertain an application purported to be under section 66 1 of the indian income tax act 1922 in respect of such order ?
sachin chaudhuri m. c. chagla t. a. ramachandran and d. n. gupta for the respondent.
c. manchanda s. p. nayar and r. n. sachthey for the appellant.
civil appellate jurisdiction c.a.number 495 of 1970.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by hegde s. this is an appeal by certificate.
thus the assessee companypany sustained a loss of rs.
in return the subsidiary companypany transferred to the assessee companypany its shares of the value of rs.1 3881173/ .
the material facts of the case as companyld be gathered from the case stated by the tribunal are as follows herein we are companycerned with the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1947 48 relevant accounting year being the financial year 1946 47 the assessee companypany floated a subsidiary companypany named messrs.
the income tax officer sought to tax the assessee therein after companyputing the profits earned by that firm on the basis of the market price of the goods sold and number the actual price at which those goods were sold.
the high companyrt agreed with the conclusion reached by the tribunal.
at that stage as seen from the records the income tax officer applied for amending his appeal memo but that prayer was rejected by the income tax appellate tribunal.
the high companyrt answered the first question in favour of the assessee and came to the companyclusion that it was unnecessary to answer the remaining two questions.
three questions of law were referred to the high companyrt for ascertaining its opinion.
as against that order the income tax officer went up in appeal to the income tax appellate tribunal.
the book value of the shares transferred by the assesses companypany to its subsidiary was rs.
clive row investment hold l797sup.ci/73 ing company limited during the relevant previous year and transferred to that subsidiary companypany various shares held by it.
