Cosmat Traders Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) We hold that the assessment order is bad in law for the reason that the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the assessee, has not issued a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act as required by the statute. Notice issue by the officer having no jurisdiction of the […]
DCIT Vs Agile Electric Sub Assembly Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Chennai) Admittedly, the assessee has filed a tabular chart explaining date of purchase of machinery and completion of commissioning of such machinery, as per which all the plant and machinery was commissioned before 30.03.2013. The assessee had also placed on record commissioning report for installation and […]
Unifi Capital Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer (ITAT Chennai) Admittedly, membership fee paid to any stock exchange including MCX Exchange Ltd., is for acquiring a right in membership of exchanges for trading in shares and securities. Further membership rights in any stock exchange including MCX Exchange Ltd., is a transferable right. Therefore, said right […]
DCIT Vs Pool Thevar Marimuthu (ITAT Chennai) The Assessing Officer alleged that assessee has used old plant and machinery previously used in the unit of M/s. Arun Plasto Moulders Private Ltd at Rs.31 ,20,023/- out of total plant and machinery installed at new unit of Rs.59,81,123/- and the said used plant and machinery is more […]
Hill Queen Investment (P) Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Kolkata) In this case issue is whether the ld. Pr. CIT is correct in invoking his powers u/s 263 of the Act. In our considered view, the Assessing Officer has called for and verified all the details and documents in connection to the purchase and sale of […]
CIT could not brand the action of AO to accept the claim of assessee in respect of LTCG as a case of no enquiry on the part of AO to term it as an erroneous order and which finding could have facilitated him to usurp/interfere by exercising his revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263. Further, CIT himself ought to have conducted enquiry to bring out the fallacy as to show how the enquiry conducted by the AO was erroneous. Thus, revision was not justified as the impugned order was nothing but cut & paste exercise without application of mind.
Additions made on the basis of statement of assessee u/s 132(4) in the hands of assessee ignoring the fact that the seized material belongs to company was not justified as the same were not attributable to the Managing Director for undisclosed and unaccounted income of the Company.
It is undisputed fact that the consideration is paid to individuals who had experience in the business of consultancy for not to engage themselves in similar kind of business and activities for a period of 3 years. It is also not disputed that such consideration is independent and not part of the cost of acquisition of business paid to shareholders.
Addition of on-money payment made in both these assessees’ hands on the basis of a mere dumb document and not corroborated by any other evidence was not sustainable as the department had failed to corroborate the impugned seized document indicating assessee’s alleged on money payment over and above the sale price itself.
Unicity Health Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Admittedly, the business promotion expenses have been incurred for the purpose of improving sales of the assessee. There is merit in the submission of Ld. A.R. that the question of applying bright line test does not arise in the facts of the present case. Every businessman would […]
