ITAT Kolkata quashes arbitrary disallowance by AO. Ambuja Housing wins against DCIT. Get insights into the judgment on Rule 8D and 14A.
Shares at premium were issued by assessee-company to other companies in lieu of shares held by those companies and since no cash was involved in these transactions and transactions were entered into in books of assessee-company by way of journal entries, AO was not, therefore, justified in making addition under section 68.
Art-E-Mide Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) AO noted that the assessee has paid consolidated salary (contract pay) of Rs. 8,39,960/-. Since it was shown as contractual payment made by the assessee of Rs. 8,39,960/- according to AO, Section 194C of the Act was attracted and therefore, the assessee was bound to deduct the […]
The amendment brought about by way of Explanation 2 to section 37 by Finance Act, 2014, was only with effect from 01.04.2015. ITAT held that the amendment in question is not retrospective. Expenditure incurred in CSR in accordance with guidelines issued by the Govt. of India is allowable as a deduction for both A.Y. 2013-14 and A.Y. 2014-15. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
Ritin Lakhmani Vs PCIT (ITAT Kolkata) In this case The ld. Pr. CIT has simply cut and pasted para 5 to para 5.12.3 and also para 6 from the orders he had passed u/s 263 of the Act from the order of the Pr. CIT passed u/s 263 of the Act in the case of […]
Sanmin Trading & Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) The issue under consideration is whether addition made u/s 68 on the ground that the share capital received is seen not a genuine credit is justified in law? ITAT states that section 68 of the Act provides that if any sum found credited in the […]
Disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D could not exceed tax free income earned by assessee. Therefore, AO was directed to restrict disallowance made on account of the common administrative expenses to the amount of exempt dividend income actually earned by the assessee during the year under consideration.
The issue under consideration is whether the addition of ‘Mark to market’ Loss made by AO on account of disallowance of loss on foreign exchange forward contract loss is justified in law?
CIT Vs Dozco Infratech Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) Assessee shows that depreciation claimed by the Assessee @ 30% on Excavators, Bull dozers and Wheel Loaders has been rightly claimed and should be allowed in full as against @ 15% allowed by the Assessing Officer. Learned departmental representative vehemently contended during the course of hearing that […]
Hon’ble Supreme Court examined the omission on the part of the AO not providing opportunity to assessee to cross examine of two witnesses and held that it was a serious flaw and since the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order this omission on the part of AO makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of Principles of natural justice.
