ITAT held that loss from trading in commodity derivatives is not a speculative loss and rightly been set off by the assessee against regular business profits from medical derivatives business.
ITAT imposes cost of Rs.25,000 for lackadaisical and non co-operative attitude of the assessee towards the quantum proceedings
Assessee did not appear on the date of hearing and did not furnish any application stating any reasonable cause for not appearing on the given date nor requested any adjournment. Thus, there is a clear violation of provision of Section 131 of the Act and penalty u/s 272A(1)(C) of the Act is attracted.
Assessing Officer has given a finding that the assessee had used a pre arranged device in form of booking of bogus purchases of shares. This finding of the Assessing Officer is not rebutted by the assessee by placing any material on record. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 3,32,850/- made u/s 69C is hereby sustained.
We note that the assessee did not suppress the fact that no income incurred as such, but however it is reflected in Form 26AS data which is otherwise a salary data and TDS deductions are available for examination to the AO.
ITAT held that tax withholding provisions under section 194H would not be applicable to discounts extended to pre-paid SIM distributors on transfer of pre-paid SIM cards/talk time.
Sujit Kumar Dey Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata) The assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by ld. PCIT has been challenged before us by the assessee. Before we advert to the facts and law involved in this issue before us, let us revisit the law governing the issue before us. The assessee has challenged […]
PBN Constructions (P) Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata) ITAT direct the A.O. to delete the addition and hold that the Amendment brought in Finance Act 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 by inserting an Explanation to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B of the Act is prospective in nature and would apply from AY 2021-22 onwards. FULL TEXT OF […]
In this case the valuation was done based on the statement of assessee’s son who is no way connected with assessee’s business except his occasional visits. Therefore, the statement of Sh. Rajat Jain has no evidentiary value.
Government Corporation is like any other assessee before the tax authority and cannot be allowed to plead that on this count it be given a preferential treatment and be allowed to escape the responsibilities of representing their case before the other governmental authorities including the tax authorities.
