Srabani Construction (P) Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Cuttack) In respect of addition of Rs.51,84,803/- made by the AO u/s.68 of the Act with regard to sundry creditors, on observing the financial statement it is found that the assessee could not produce the creditors as well as could not satisfy the three ingredients i.e. identity, creditworthiness […]
Supreme Concrete & Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Cuttack) It is admitted position that the loan from Sinclair Builders Pvt Ltd., has been obtained by account payee cheque. Confirmation, copy of account as well as the bank statement of the creditor has also been furnished. The assessee has also deducted TDS on the interest […]
Where assessee-trust was collecting fees from different organizations towards training programmes and it also received rent for letting out its part premises; the CIT was justified in rejecting the assessee s application for grant of registration under section 12AA on the ground that the activities of the trust were not charitable, but were commercial in nature.
Evangelical Missionary Society Vs CIT (Exemptions) (ITAT Cuttack) Sec. 12A of the Income Tax Act lays down the provisions of Sec,11 & 12 shall not apply in relation to the income of any trust or institution unless the condition stated therein are fulfilled. The first condition for allowing the exemption u/s.11 is that the person […]
Balika Vidyalaya Educational & Cultural Trust Vs CIT (Exemptions) (ITAT Cuttack) We find that as per the provisions of section 11 & 12 of the Act, the income derived from property held for charitable or religious purposes and income of Trusts or Institutions from contributions are exempt from tax provided such Trusts or Institutions are […]
Explore Angul Sukinda Railway Ltd. vs ITO case. ITAT Cuttack decision on interest treatment for FDR and Flexi deposits. Full judgment details here.
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 the basis of change of opinion, in view of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in Kelvinator’s case (supra), is not permissible in law.
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 […]
