Once it is clear that the assessee had correctly debited the profit and loss account for the loss arising out of the transfer of investment division, there remains no difficulty in realizing that the CIT proceeded on a wrong premise which was responsible for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 which he would not have done if he had realized the correct position.
scope of section 154 does not extend to a debatable issue and hence the assessing officer in exercise of power u/s 154 could not have withdrawn the interest u/s 244A(1)(b) on the refund of excess self assessment tax.
Calcutta High Court held In the case of CIT vs. Shri Shyamal Sarkar that there is a presumption in law that all official and judicial acts were regularly performed. In this case, this presumption is supported by the fact that the assessee had paid the fees of the auditor.
Calcutta High Court held In the case of CESC Ltd. vs. CIT that Section 43B of the Income Tax Act is attracted to a case where payment is to be made to the State Government in the capacity of the State as a sovereign and not to a case where payment is to be made to the State Government in its capacity
Calcutta High Court held In the case of Hutchison Telecom East Ltd. vs. CIT that the discount allowed to the distributors in respect of starter packs and recharge coupons for its prepaid services will be covered under commission or brokerage, liable to TDS u/s 194H.
Calcutta High Court held In the case of Duncan International Ltd. vs. CIT that Section 36 (2) (iii) allowed the assessee to claim the deduction on account of bad debts in subsequent years even if bad debts have written off in earlier years and which were not allowed.
Calcutta High Court held In the case of CIT vs. Mahesh Chandra Mantri that It is apparent from the language of the Section 2(22) (e) that before any payment can take the character of dividend within the meaning of the aforesaid provision it has to be shown that there were accumulated profits lying
Kolkatta High court held Shyam Burlap Company Ltd Vs CIT that as the assesse’s main business is purchasing, developing and letting out of property. The same was mentioned in the object clause of memorandum of the company.
In the case of Price Waterhouse & Anr. Vs CIT, Calcutta High Court through an interim order opined that if there was no relevant material in the hands of the Income Tax authorities with which it has come to an incontrovertible conclusion that the writ petitioner no.1 was an ‘associated enterprise’
Revenue challenged the order passed by ITAT majorly on three grounds. Firstly, on ground of adopting value of property as per the value provided by registered valuer instead of value adopted by AO on the basis of report of DVO.
