Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Conclusion: Amount paid as compensation by assessee to related company in respect of vacation of property occupied by that company was made after much negotiation and it was thus in accordance with business of assessee and therefore, the same was allowable. Held: During the […]
Depreciation claimed by assessee under section 32 cannot be considered for the purpose of computing disallowance under section 14A because section 14A deals only with the expenditure and not any statutory allowance, such as depreciation under section 32.
Mercury Car Rentals Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) During the course of assessment proceeding, the AO observed that assessee failed to reconcile interest income to the extent of Rs.67,939/- with its books of accounts and therefore added back the said amount as undisclosed interest income of the appellant as shown in the Form 26AS. […]
Mercury Car Rentals Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) It is noted that the provisions in respect of gratuity, leave encashment, ex-gratia & bonus were created on actuarial basis and had been estimated with reasonable certainty. Accordingly such provisions cannot be said to be provisions of unascertained liabilities so to add it back under clause […]
Ms. Sachi Sarees Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata) There is no law which prohibits a person to work in more than one partnership firms and draw remuneration therefrom. All that Section 40(b) requires is that the remuneration should be paid to a working partner and there is no prohibition either in the Income-tax Act, 1961 or […]
Since assessee had given reasonable cause for availing loan in cash from his father within the meaning of section 271D, therefore, he would be out of the rigours of levy of penalty under section 271D and no penalty could be levied.
Since assessee had explained both the nature & source of share capital received with premium and also submitted PAN details, bank account statements, audited financial statements and Income Tax acknowledgments to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants, therefore, addition under section 68 was unjustified.
Since higher profit margin was earned by section 80-IC unit on account of lower cost of production due to various incentives and availability of raw material at lower rates, there was no reason to restrict assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80IC.
ITO Vs M/s Megasun Merchants Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) Conclusion: Since assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants by filing sufficient evidences and accordingly, the onus shifted to AO to disprove the materials placed before him and as AO failed to do so, addition of share […]
Assessee assailed the imposition of penalty under section 271B imposed by AO on account of failure to get accounts audited under section 44AB. Assessee contended that penalty was not justified as no books of account were maintained by assessee.
