ITAT Kolkata

LTCG on shares cannot be treated as Bogus on mere alleged share price rigging

ITO Vs Shri Suresh Chand Gupta 16 (ITAT Kolkata)

ITO Vs Shri Suresh Chand Gupta (ITAT Kolkata) On the basis of evidences filed by assessee its claim was to be allowed where income in question was a bona fide long-term capital gains arising from sale of shares and hence, exempt from tax as there was no material indicating assessee’s nexus with alleged share price rigging. FULL [&hell...

Read More

ITCG cannot be held bogus merely on human probabilities or surmises

Mahavir Jhanwar Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)

Mahavir Jhanwar Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) The sole issue that arises for my adjudication is whether the Assessing Officer was right in rejecting the claim of the assessee that he had earned Long Term Capital Gains on purchase and sale of the shares of M/s Unno Industries. The AO based on a general report and […]...

Read More

Employees Benefits provisions allowable in book profit computation

Mercury Car Rentals Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata)

Mercury Car Rentals Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) It is noted that the provisions in respect of gratuity, leave encashment, ex-gratia & bonus were created on actuarial basis and had been estimated with reasonable certainty. Accordingly such provisions cannot be said to be provisions of unascertained liabilities so to add it back un...

Read More

No law barring Partners to draw Remuneration from multiple Firms

Ms. Sachi Sarees Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata)

Ms. Sachi Sarees Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata) There is no law which prohibits a person to work in more than one partnership firms and draw remuneration therefrom. All that Section 40(b) requires is that the remuneration should be paid to a working partner and there is no prohibition either in the Income-tax Act, 1961 or […]...

Read More

Penalty U/s. 271(c) not sustainable if notice not have specific charge

ITO Vs M/s. Ambey Retailers Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata)

As notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 did not specify particular viz., whether assessee had concealed particulars of income or had furnished inaccurate particulars thereof, hence, levy of penalty could not be sustained....

Read More

Set off of unabsorbed business losses against capital income arising through slump sale allowable

Gouranga Cement Pvt.Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata)

Gouranga Cement Pvt.Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) It is undisputed fact that the assessee has the earned the long term capital income by way of transfer of the business assets such as factory building, Plant & Machinery, electric installation under the head slum sale. Thus the nature of LTCG is in the nature of business […]...

Read More

LTCG on sale of shares cannot be treated bogus merely on investigation report

Mr. Sanjiv Shroff Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata)

When AO has not brought any material on record to show that the assessee has paid over and above the purchase consideration as claimed and evident from the bank account then, in the absence of any evidence it cannot be held that the assessee has introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus long term capital gain....

Read More

A firm not being shareholder cannot be Taxed for Deemed Dividend

Modern Impex Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ITAT Kolkata)

Firm being not a shareholder of the Pvt. Ltd. company which lent the money cannot be taxed by applying sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act. So, the addition is deleted....

Read More

TDS U/s. 195 not deductible on commission paid to USA based payee

ACIT Vs M/s Calcutta Export Co. (ITAT Kolkata)

ACIT Vs M/s Calcutta Export Co. (ITAT Kolkata) The Revenue has failed to place on record even a single document throwing light towards the fact that the payee herein has rendered any of its services in India thereby making it liable to be assessed u/s 9 r.w.s 5 of the Act. The assessee’s payee has […]...

Read More

Sec. 68 addition unjustified when assessee explains both nature & source of share capital

M/s Baba Bhootnath Trade & Commerce Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)

Since assessee had explained both the nature & source of share capital received with premium and also submitted PAN details, bank account statements, audited financial statements and Income Tax acknowledgments to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants, therefore, addition under section 68 was unjustif...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (4,127)
Company Law (4,680)
Custom Duty (7,264)
DGFT (3,919)
Excise Duty (4,191)
Fema / RBI (3,672)
Finance (3,882)
Income Tax (29,703)
SEBI (3,120)
Service Tax (3,448)