AO has remained sited with folded hands and has not made any independent enquiry from concerned AO of share holder company which itself is sufficient to knock off the addition made. On basis of this I have no hesitation to delete the additions of Rs 25,00,000 and Rs 45,000 made u/s 68
Kishan Rao Vs Shankargouda (Supreme Court Of India) In the present case, the trial court as well as the Appellate Court having found that cheque contained the signatures of the accused and it was given to the appellant to present in the Bank of the presumption under Section 139 was rightly raised which was not […]
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Thane dated 13.07.2016 and pertains to the assessment year 2010-11
ITO Vs. Wiz-Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Kolkata) The main plank on which the AO made the addition was because the directors of the share subscribers did not turn up before him. In such a case the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. (supra) 159 ITR 78 and the Hon’ble […]
This appeal by the revenue arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-20, Kolkata [in short the ld CIT(A)] in Appeal No.1044/CIT(A)-20/CC-1(1)/15-16 dated 25.07.2016 against the order passed by the ACIT, CC-1(1), Kolkata
Betterman Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs I.T.O. (ITAT Kolkata) In the instant case the assessee has acquired certain fixed assets on lease and has charged depreciation on the same. The assets being the godown building, office building, power house building, Weigh Bridge room and machinery. The ld. AO on the basis of the statement made by […]
The fact that the consent application proposed by the Respondent was accepted by SEBI also on the footing that the Respondent has paid the settlement “without admitting or denying the charges” indicates that the SEBI was not unaware of the outcome of its case against the Respondent. There is no reason to believe or infer that consent application without admitting guilt amounts to evidence of an offence having been committed.
The AO was of the view that as per the provision of section 80AC of the Act any deduction under Chapter-VI A of the Act (Sec. 80IA of the Act is part of Chapter VIA of the Act) can be claimed only if the return of income for the relevant assessment year is filed on or before the due date prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act. Since the assessee has not complied with the aforesaid conditions, the AO refused to allow deduction u/s 80IA of the Act.
We are of the view that the ULIP surrender charges are not part of taxable service of management of funds. Rather it is in the nature of penalty or liquidated damages which is not a service and hence cannot be made liable for tax during the period involved .
Supreme Court has in the case of PCIT Vs. Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia upheld the Gujarat high Court Order and dismissed the special leave petition filed by Department on the issue of deletion of Addition for Bogus Purchases. Text of the High Court Judgment in TAX APPEAL NO. 691 of 2017 dated: 18 September, 2017 is […]
