The issue under consideration is whether the addition made by AO by considering the transaction entered by the assessee as bogus transactions are justified in law?
It is noted that the assessee is into the business of truck plying in North-East States and it is common knowledge that the drivers and cleaners before they start their journey on their trucks conduct puja of the God they believe and they incur expenses for buying garlands, bhog etc. for safe and smooth running of the vehicle while they go to the pre-destined location which are located in the remote areas of Assam, Meghalaya and Mizoram to deliver/collect goods. The expenses thus it is noted are incurred by the assessee for puja is for the smooth functioning of the business of transport as discussed cannot be disallowed.
In the light of judgment of Coordinate Bench of ITAT Kolkata in the case of REI Agro Ltd, we note that only dividend bearing securities should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) of I.T. Rules.
Kusumlata Sonthalia vs. PCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Preliminary issue of whether the addition could be framed u/s 153A of the Act in respect of a concluded proceeding without the existence of any incriminating materials found in the course of search. The scheme of the Act provides for abatement of pending proceedings as on the date of […]
ITAT Kolkata ruling on Amrabathi Investra (P) Ltd. Vs ITO case. Assessment reopened u/s 147. Read full judgment details and outcome.
Dulari Devi Hetamsaria (L/H of Shyam Sundar Hetamsaria) Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata) ITAT Mumbai, in the case of M/s John Flower ( India) Pvt. Ltd, in ITA No.7545/Mum/2014, for A.Y. 2010-11, order dated 25.01.2017 held that if the difference between the valuation adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority and declared by the assessee is less […]
The issue under consideration is whether the receipt of advance vis-a-vis no accumulated profit in case of lending company is considered as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e)?
Once the claim under section 35D of the Act was accepted in the initial year i.e. AY 1995-96, then the clock had started running in favour of the assessee which was to continue for the entire period of ten years and the benefit once granted in the initial year could not be denied in the subsequent years.
The issue under consideration is whether the CIT(E) is correct in rejecting the Application for grant of registration u/s 12AA for mere non-filing of Income Tax Return?
Whether the higher rate of depreciation can be granted to the vehicles used for the display of advertisement under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
