Bypass Properties Private Ltd., Kolkata Vs. ITO (ITAT kolkata)- As per the alteration of security deposit clause dated 10.11.2006 which was placed at page 67 of the paper book it is observed that the lessee shall keep in deposit and advance which is the lessors a sum of Rs. 21 crores by interest free deposit . Then it was further stated in the said alteration that the amount of security deposit shall not refundable during the continuance of the lease period. Subsequently the lease period has been extended from 21 years to 62 years on 26.03.2007 which was placed at page 66 of the paper book.
D.C.I.T., Central Circle-XIX Vs. MBL Infrastructure Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata)- All the impugned entries were analysed by the assessee company in detail and the entry to entry correlation with the cash workings filed by the applicants before the Honourable Settlement Commission were submitted by the assessee before the lower authorities. The entries of disclosed nature were also correlated with the regular books of account of the concerned persons and copies of relevant extracts of the regular accounts were filed with the A.O. As such, the ownership of the undisclosed entries by the concerned applicants and due reflection of disclosed entries in regular books of account were categorically established.
Lions Club of Calcutta Hastings Vs DIT (Exemption)- (ITAT Kolkata)- In the present case no show cause notice has been issued to the assessee. Therefore, we do not see any merit in this contention of the lad that the provisions contained in section 293C of the Act enables the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax to withdraw approval. We, therefore, considering the totality of the facts as discussed hereinabove are of the view that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax was not justified in withdrawing approval once granted because the Legislature in all its wisdom has sought to omit this proviso to section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act and after omission of the said proviso, the approval once granted shall continue to be valid in perpetuity unless and until a show cause notice is issued by the concerned CIT showing his intention to withdraw already granted such approval.
Shri Rajeev Kumar Jain Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)- Assessee stated that the assessee during the year under consideration took loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- from one Shri Amit Kr. Jain, a close relative, by account payee demand draft. The assessee furnished copies of P&L Account, Balance Sheet, I. T. Returns, bank statement for FY 2006-07 relevant to Assessment Year 2007-08 along with confirmation from Shri Amit Kr. Jain.
Sri Suman Bose Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) In respect to accrued interest, it is not clear whether the interest is received by assessee on accrual basis or on receipt basis. If the interest received on accrual basis the addition qua this year interest can be made in this year and not of entire interest. In case, interest is received on receipt basis the amount of Rs.24,000/- – Rs.12,600/- can be added in this year. This fact can be verified by the Assessing Officer after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
DCIT vs. M/s. S. K. Tekriwal (ITAT Kolkata) – In the present case before us the assessee has deducted tax u/s. 194C(2) of the Act being payments made to sub-contractors and it is not a case of non-deduction of tax or no deduction of tax as is the import of section 40a(ia) of the Act. But the revenue’s contention is that the payments are in the nature of machinery hire charges falling under the head ‘rent’ and the previous provisions of section 194I of the Act are applicable. According to revenue, the assessee has deducted tax @ 1% u/s. 194C(2) of the Act as against the actual deduction to be made at 10% u/s. 194I of the Act, thereby lesser deduction of tax.
DCIT Vs. Bihariji Ispat Udyog Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata)- From the record it appears that all the aforesaid transactions were by Account Payee cheques and loan confirmation and also the confirmation for payment of Share Application Money were obtained from the said Ankur Marketing Ltd. with its I.T. File No. and the same were filed with the A.O. For the Share Application Money received by the assessee, shares were allotted immediately after close of the accounting year 2000-01.
ITO Vs Rajesh Kr Garg (ITAT Kolkata) In the present case the claim of the asse see is that at the time of paying the interest to the 34 persons mentioned in the assessment order, he had before him the appropriate declarations in the prescribed form from the payees stating that no tax was payable by them in respect of their total income and therefore tax need not be deducted from interest under section 194A, and in the light of these declarations he had no option but to make the payment of interest without any tax deduction.
ITO Vs Millenium Writing Products Pvt Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) Deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act is available to an assessee whose gross total income includes any profits and gains derived from eligible business as specified in the section. Here the assessee is claiming deduction on an item of disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of employees’ contribution to PF, which was not deposited within the due date. This is neither an item of profit or gain of eligible business nor an item of Profit & Loss Account or manufacturing account rather it is just an employees’ contribution to PF, which assessee has to collect from its employees and to deposit with the PF authorities within the due date prescribed.
ITC Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata)– We have carefully considered the submissions of the ld. representatives of the parties and the orders of the authorities below. We have also gone through the details of the expenditure aggregating Rs. 9,00,111 claimed by the assessee, the break-up of which has already been mentioned herein above. We observe […]
