The issue under consideration is whether the leasehold rights is considered as intangible assets and hence eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii)? ITAT hold that the lease hold rights are not eligible for depreciation u/s.32(1)(ii) of the Act considering it as intangible rights and, accordingly, dismiss the ground of appeal of ...

Angul Sukinda Railway Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Cuttack) We find that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee explained before the AO with regard to interest on mobilization advance is a capital receipt, therefore, it has been reduced from the capital work-in-progress and in case of interest earned on fixed deposit/flexi deposits...

National Aluminium Company Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Cuttack) The issue under consideration is whether disallowance u/s 14A without following calculation method mentioned under rule 8D is justified in law?...

Assessing Officer has taken into consideration the facts and estimated the profit taking into deposits in the bank accounts. Thereafter, there were no new facts before the Assessing Officer which could justify the reopening. On these facts, it was nothing more than change of mind by the Assessing Officer, and a reopening of assessment on ...

DCIT Vs Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd (ITAT Cuttack) In this case there is nothing to suggest that all the primary facts were not disclosed by the assessee at the time of original assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act nor any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly […]...

GVV Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Cuttack) If the assessee uses motor lorries partly for own use and for hire charges he is not entitled to claim excess depreciation @ 30% as per the provisions of Section 32 of the Income Tax Act. Case Summary: – Facts of the case: The assessee filed return […]...

The issue under consideration is whether as per Section 43CB, profits and gains of a construction company mandatorily be determined on the basis of percentage completion method for revenue  recognition?...

Alishan Palace Resorts Pvt Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Cuttack) in the instant case, the value adopted and computed by the assessee as per Rule 11UA(2)(c)(b) by following DCF method at Rs.51/85 and the assessee company has received shares and issued/allotted @ Rs.50 per share including premium and this rate has not been contested or challenged [&he...

Both assessment and the penalty order do not specify as to on which limb the AO intends to impose penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act either for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income....

AO considered assessee as assessee in default in respect of non-deduction of TDS under Section 194H and 194J of the Act on payment of commission and fees for professional or technical services and passed an order under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act....

The assessee cannot escape himself for non-filing quarterly TDS merely stating that the PAN of the employees are not available. The penalty is provided in the Income Tax provisions u/s.272A(2)(k) of the Act is mandatory in nature except in case of reasonable cause proved by the assessee, which is lack in this case....

ITAT held that As there was part non-compliance by assessee with first notice under section 142(1) and complete non-compliance with subsequent notice under section 142(1), the AO was right in framing assessment order under section 144 and in denying allowance of interest and salary paid to partners by taking support of provisions of secti...

The appeal has been filed against the addition of Rs. 11,12,211/- made by the learned AO and confirmed by the learned CIT(Appeals) treating the said amount as not commission but as salary income without allowing deduction u/s. 37 of the IT. Act, 1961, the expenses incurred to earn the said commission. But in fact, the entire receipt is co...

Assessment under section 153A could not be made for making addition of unexplained income if assessment was unabated which had attained finality on the date of search and no incriminating material was found as per record. ...

Penalty u/s.271E was not leviable as the belief of assessee that return of advance from customers was not prohibited by section 269T was a bonafide belief....

The provisions of section 68 cannot be applied to sundry creditors and the assessee cannot be applied to sundry creditors and the assessee cannot be asked to prove the 3 ingredients of cash credits in respect of sundry creditors....

Das & Sons Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Cuttack) amount claimed on payment of PF and ESI having been deposited on or before due date of filing of returns, same could not be disallowed under section 43B or under section 36(1)(va). FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT This is an appeal filed by the […]...

M/s. Sree Alankar Vs PCIT (ITAT Cuttack) In the instant case, we find that it is not in dispute that the assessee is consistently following the same method of valuation of closing stock which was also followed in the year under consideration. The profit was deduced in accordance with the method adopted by the assessee. […]...

ITO Vs Adhikar (ITAT Cuttack) In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the assessee is engaged in the activity of Micro Finance. The Assessing Officer considered the same as non-charitable activity within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Act on the ground that the activities were carried out on commercial lines. […]...

Panda Fuels Vs ITO (ITAT Cuttack) We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of lower authorities and materials available on record. In the instant case the Assessing Officer disallowed deduction for remuneration paid to partners of Rs.6,64,923/- on the ground that the partnership deed does not provide for remuneration to par...

When amendment made U/s. 200A of Income Tax Act which has come into effect on 1.6.2015 is held to be having prospective effect, no computation of fee for the demand or the intimation for the fee under Section 234E could be made for the TDS deducted for the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015....

 M/s. Orison Transport Vs DCIT (ITAT Cuttack) Belief of the assessee that return of advance from customers is not prohibited by section 269T was a bonafide belief. Therefore, the levy of penalty u/s.271E of the Act of Rs.21,49,943/- cannot be sustained. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT This is an appeal filed by the assessee against [&hel...

Xavier Institute of Management Vs ITO (ITAT Cuttack) The Cuttack bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the income received by a charitable institution imparting education shall not be charged for receiving training and consultancy fee from corporates as the same cannot be treated as a ‘commercial activity’ fo...

Hemant Kumar Pradhan Vs ITO (ITAT Cuttack) Original assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act was made by the AO by rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee and estimating the income of the assessee at 8% of the gross contract receipt of Rs. 49,10,212/-. It is trite law that once the books of accounts of […]...

We find that the audit report was obtained within section 139(1) time limit is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the copy of audit report was furnished to the Assessing Officer as and when the Assessing Officer called for the same. ...

The provisions of section 40A(3) are not intended to restrict the business activities but to caution that payments exceeding Rs.20,000/- are made in cheque/draft. The provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act are to be in consonance with business expediency trade practice and other genuine relevant factors...

Assessing Officer has issued notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 27.03.2015 without striking off the irrelevant words, the penalty proceedings show a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer and is, thus, unsustainable....

CIT may consider an order of the AO to be erroneous not only it contains some apparent error of reasoning or of law or of fact on the face of it but also because it is a stereo typed order which simply accepts what the assessee has stated in his return and fails to make enquirers which are called for in the circumstances of the case....

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. Vs. ACIT, (ITAT Cuttack) In the present case found that thee Assessing Officer has initiated reassessment proceedings on the same facts which were available before him at the time of making assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act and no new tangible material has come on the basis of which it could be said […]...

Lease hold rights are not eligible for depreciation u/s.32(1)(ii) of the Act considering it as intangible asset and, hence, dismiss this ground of appeal of the assessee....

When hiring of trucks and payment thereof was not in consequence upon any written or oral agreement, the natural outcome is that the provisions of section 194C, as has been held in the decisions referred to herein before, were also not applicable to the assessee’s case ...

Taxability of income earned by an assessee during the period when the project was not complete and business had not commenced has remained a debatable point in many cases. ...

A perusal of the provisions of section 80IA(4) of the Act shows that in the explanation ‘infrastructure facility’ has been specified to mean a road including a toll road, a bridge or a rail system. Admittedly, the assessee is doing the business of development of railway tracks and bridges thereof as also roads....

Amounts whether employees' contribution or the employer's contribution are not being shown as payable as on the last date of the Assessment Year cannot be brought to tax if the same has been paid before the due date of filing of the return....

The discrepancies brought on record have culminated into rejection of the books result could not wash away the fact finding insofar as the assessee continues to be a local authority which it was prior to Assessment Year 2003- 04. The submissions of the learned Counsel for the assessee on the issue of the learned CIT(A) upholding the statu...

With respect to the deduction u/s.194-I,the learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the land lady being a senior citizen has submitted Form 15G to the assessee declaring that no tax should be deducted on the rent paid to her when the taxable limit for taxation in her hand was to be Rs. 1,95,000. ...

In this view of the matter, the estimation at 8% confirmed by the learned CIT(A) by deleting these additions and disallowances made u/ss.68 and 69 we hold 7% profit as reasonable to be taxable income on the gross receipts disclosed by the assessee in its financial statements. ...

Corpus fund is the property of the Trust. The donors contributed the donations therefore could not form part of the income & expenditure account as prescribed by law. The development fees received later on was from students was to be identified by the assessee over and above the corpus funds when the students were made aware that they are...

Statute makes the amended provision Section 80P(4) inserted by Finance Act, 2006 to be effective from 1.4.2007, which therefore clearly indicates that it is applicable from the Assessment Year 2007-08 onwards. The said provision clearly mandates that the provisions of Section 80P shall not apply in relation to any co-operative bank other ...

GRID-CO Limited Vs. ACIT (ITAT Cuttack)-The Tribunal observed that Circular No. 5 and Circular No. 736 had given restricted meaning to the word ‘rent’. However, in view of the decisions relied by the tax department, the word ‘rent’ is to be given a wider meaning. Accordingly, the contention of the taxpayer on this aspect was rejec...

Cuttack bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of R.R. Caryying Corpn. v. ACIT [2009] 126 TTJ 240 (Cuttack) held that only the embedded portion of the profits is to be considered as taxable and not the entire amount in the case of discrepancies between the sales or receipt amount as per books of accounts ...