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 […]
Whether Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to adopt the value of the property sold as per DVO report for the purpose of computing capital gains in place of value adopted by Stamp Valuation Authority and considered by AO as per provisions of Section 50C(1) of the IT Act, 1961. Held, Yes If the fair market value as assessed by the DVO is lower than the value adopted by Stamp Duty Authorities for collecting stamp duty. Then value so adopted by DVO has to be adopted by the AO for the purpose of computation of LTCG.
DCIT, Kolkata Vs Rajesh Kumar Drolia- (ITAT Kolkata)- The assessee is earning job work charges as well as repairs and maintenance, which are included in job work charges, no doubt it is established that there is commercial connection between profits earned on account of repairs and maintenance and the industrial undertaking but for that source of profit is not directly from industrial undertaking. The business of industrial undertaking had directly to yield that profit to claim deduction u/s. 80-IB of the Act.
DCIT Vs Rupen Das (ITAT Kolkata)- The assessee was engaged in providing security guards to various Government and non-Government organisations and regular payment to the employees was essential to provide better services.
J. K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd. (Taxpayer) Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata)- In computing the book profit for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, the assessee was entitled to deduction in terms of clause (iii) of the Explanation to section 115JB(2) of the Act the adjustment of debit balance in the Profit and Loss Account with share Premium Account and Revaluation Reserve made on September 30, 2000, which is required to be excluded from consideration and accordingly, AO is required to determine amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation for each of years without taking said adjustment into consideration and allow deduction in respect of lesser of two amounts.
