Though there are nine grounds raised by assessee there are only two issues involved in this appeal. One issue in ground no.3 is relating to confirmation of dis allowance of Rs. 25,000/- made by AO and further enhancement of dis allowance by Rs. 1,56,609/- u/s 14A of the IT Act.
Addl. CIT Vs. J.A. Land & Housing Development India Limited (ITAT Kolkata) – Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271D for the assessment year 2004-05 in respect of M/s. J.A. Land & Housing Dev. India Limited and also in assessment years 2005-06 & 2006-07, as well as under section 271E of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2007-08 in the case of M/s. J.A.M. Chemical Works Limited. Assessing Officer was of the view that violation of Section 269SS which defines ‘loan or deposit’ & Section 269T defines ‘loan or deposit’ and the common word loan means lending a sum of money by one party to another upon agreement to repay.
ITO Vs M/s. St. Joseph Construction (ITAT Kolkata)- Ld. CIT(Appeals) after considering the assessees submissions directed the Assessing Officer to reject the books of accounts of the assessee-firm since the assessee had concealed huge contractual receipts to the tune of Rs. 54,55,543/-. He also directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the profit @ 8% on the entire receipts of Rs. 1,12,29,347/- equivalent to Rs. 8,98,348/-, net of all expenses including salary and interest payments to partners.
ITO Vs. Landmark Finance Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata)- The facts are not disputed that the assessee was dealing shares as trader in shares as well as holding the shares as investment. It is not disputed that the assessee had kept both the portfolios separately and the mode of valuation of stocks held as investment and stock held as stock-intrade was different. The investments were valued at cost and it was shown in the balance sheet only whereas stock-in-trade was valued at cost or market price, whichever was lower and the loss was, accordingly, claimed in the Profit & Loss A/c. and allowed to the assessee.
Jalan Finvest Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata Vs. (ITO) (ITAT Kolkata)- In ground no. 3 raised by assessee it was mentioned that the revised computation at the time of assessment was not considered. However it is observed from the impugned order that the ld. CIT(A) has mentioned the grounds raised by assessee as well as written submissions filed by assessee. But he disposed of two grounds i.e. the first issue which relates to disallowance of service tax by allowing the ground of assessee and the second issue in respect of disallowance of office maintenance has been dismissed by observing that assessee has not pressed this ground and submitted a letter in this regard.
DCIT Vs. Elgie Engineering Works (ITAT Calcutta)- On perusal of the bills of parties, it is seen that the payments are for manufacture and supply of items such as Buckstay Slings, Economiser coils, Lifting beams etc. The bills show that the price is inclusive of the material which indicates that the transactions were in the nature of sales contracts.
Income-tax Officer Vs. North East Enterprises (P) Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata)- As observed by the ld. A.O., the receipts of Rs. 50 lakhs and Rs.41,50,000/- ICD for the assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 respectively were not satisfactorily explained before him, which led him to make addition of the said amounts as assessee’s undisclosed investment. In our considered opinion, while deciding the issue the ld. C.I.T.(A) ought to have called for the remand report as the receipts of ICD amounts were not satisfactorily explained before the ld. A.O., which were shown as payments.
Since the assessment year involved in this appeal is 2005-06 Rule 8D of the IT Rules is not applicable in the present case keeping in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Pvt. Ltd. In this case the ld. CIT-Admn has issued jurisdiction u/s 263 of the IT Act based on the order of the ITAT, Special Bench, which has been subsequently over ruled by Hon’ble Bombay High Court (supra). Therefore we are of the view that invoking of provision of section 263 of the IT Act is not justifiable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence we squash the order of ld. CIT-Admn and allow the appeal of assessee.
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.
