c

ITAT Kolkata

CIT justified in charging excess GP disclosed by Assessee claiming section 80IC deduction as Income from Other Sources

Sheo Shakti Coke Industries Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata)

Sheo Shakti Coke Industries Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata) From the perusal of above finding of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that he has lucidly dealt with all the facts pertaining to discrepancies noticed in the financials of the assessee-firm and has also referred to various charts depicting the profitability of the assessee-firm in preceding years ...

Read More

Education cess, not an allowable deduction: ITAT Kolkata

Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Kolkata)

An additional surcharge, to be called the Education Cess to finance the Government’s commitment to universalise quality basic education, is proposed to be levied at the rate of two per cent on the amount of tax deducted or advance tax paid, inclusive of surcharge....

Read More

Consider only investments which actually yielded dividend income for section 14A: ITAT Kolkata

DCIT Vs Kesoram Industries Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata)

AO to consider only the opening and closing value of those investments which actually yielded dividend income to the assessee during the relevant year for the purposes of computing the disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(iii)....

Read More

ITAT deletes addition for Retention money kept with Electricity Board

Lumino Industries Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata)

Lumino Industries Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata) Retention money kept with the Electricity Board which would be released latter only once the assessee fulfills all the obligations under the contract then only the assessee would acquire the right to receive such retention money so this is contingent in nature, so the amount in question cannot...

Read More

Section 263 order not justified when AO has properly enquired the issue

Lovely International Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata)

Lovely International Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata) We find from the discussion at para 5 (supra) of this order and the finding of Ld PCIT given below para 5 corroborates that the AO in fact had issued notice u/s 142(1) and called for all the details of the share subscribers/share premium and pursuant to […]...

Read More

No Section 68 addition solely on the basis of suspicions

Smt. Tapasi Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)

Smt. Tapasi Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) It is observed that all the four donors who had given the gifts in question to the assessee during the year under consideration were engaged in the business and in the returns of income filed regularly for the year under consideration, the business income earned by them was […]...

Read More

No addition under Section 68 for loan received in earlier years

Sanjay Mehta Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata)

Where AO made addition under section 68 in respect of a loan received by assessee, however, it was found that the said loan was not received during the assessment year under consideration; the addition made under section 68 on account of such loan was not called for during the said assessment year and hence, the said addition was liable t...

Read More

Amendment in section 43B by Finance Act, 2021 is applicable prospectively

AKS Power Equipments (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Kolkata)

AKS Power Equipments (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Where assessee remitted employees contribution towards PF and ESI before filing of return under section 139(1) and that the amendment/Explanation brought in Section 43B of Income Tax Act, 1961 by Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 1-4-2021 on the instant issue being prospective in natu...

Read More

In absence of malfide or false claim AO not justified in taking hyper technical view

Shri Ashutosh Jha (HUF) Vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata)

Shri Ashutosh Jha (HUF) Vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata) The claim of the assessee has been that the assessee had purchased the property at a lower rate as per the value mentioned in the agreement to purchase dated 19-07-2012. However, the Ld. AO has adopted the stamp duty value as on date of sale i.e. 28-05-2013. […]...

Read More

Deemed dividend not attracted on Loan Taken on interest

DCIT Vs Heilgers Development & Construction Company Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Kolkata)

DCIT Vs Heilgers Development & Construction Company Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Kolkata) The loan amounts in question treated as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) by the AO were taken by the assessee-company from the three concerns on interest and since the said lending companies were compensated by interest paid by the assessee-company on the loans, t...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (5,861)
Company Law (7,967)
Custom Duty (8,935)
DGFT (4,691)
Excise Duty (4,587)
Fema / RBI (4,934)
Finance (5,344)
Income Tax (39,427)
SEBI (4,282)
Service Tax (3,846)

Search Posts by Date

January 2022
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31