Firm being not a shareholder of the Pvt. Ltd. company which lent the money cannot be taxed by applying sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act. So, the addition is deleted.
Addition under section 68 of short term capital loss on sale of shares alleged as bogus on the basis of investigation wing report was not justified as the transaction of purchase and sale of shares were supported and evidenced by Bills, Contract Notes, Demat statements and bank statements, ledger accounts of brokers and payment of STT, etc., and the transactions of purchase of shares were accepted by AO in earlier years.
Lovelock & Lewes case: Expenditure incurred by the assessee on payment of software licence fees for applications software for the right to use the software for limited/particular period of time held to be revenue expenditure
He held that the amount in question thus represented provision for meeting unascertained liabilities which was not allowable as deduction in the case of the assessee. He accordingly made a disallowance of Rs. 2,25,01,129/- on account of future development expenses and made addition to that extent to the total income of the assessee in the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 31.03.2016.
When income which was the foundation on which he based his belief of escapement of income was absent /disappeared then AO’s very usurpation of jurisdiction was on non-existing jurisdictional fact which rendered his usurpation of jurisdiction to reopen the assessment legally untenable and so null in the eyes of law and therefore, the reassessment made by AO without jurisdiction was quashed.
Dalia Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT & Anr. (ITAT Kolkata) Citation: Dalia Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT &Anr. (ITAT Kolkata); ITA No.2818/Kol/2013 & ITA No.04/Kol/2014; 27/04/2018; 2006-07 Conclusion: Disallowance of miscellaneous expenditure was without application of mind by AO as disallowances of expenses cannot exceed the amount of actual expenses claimed by assessee. Held: In […]
DCIT Vs Maco Corporation India (P) Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) There is absolutely no provision for withdrawal of recognition under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. Hence, the so-called withdrawal of recognition under section 35(1)(ii) in the hands of the payee organizations could not affect the rights and interests of assessee herein for claim of weighted deduction […]
CIT(A) has in his order relied upon circumstantial evidence and human probabilities to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called rules of suspicious transaction
Mahavir Jhanwar Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) The sole issue that arises for my adjudication is whether the Assessing Officer was right in rejecting the claim of the assessee that he had earned Long Term Capital Gains on purchase and sale of the shares of M/s Unno Industries. The AO based on a general report and […]
Since all the three conditions as required u/s. 68 i.e. the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction was satisfied by assessee and the onus shifted to AO to disprove the materials placed before him, therefore, without doing so, the addition made by AO based on conjectures and surmises could not be justified.
