ACIT (IT) Vs Shri Ayan Majumdar (ITAT Kolkata) It is not in dispute that the assessee is a non-resident in India and is a tax resident of UK during the year under consideration. It is not in dispute that his employment is exercised in UK. We find that the ld AO had denied the relief […]
Once receipt of share capital had been accepted as genuine within the ken of section 68 there was no reason for AO to doubt share premium component received from the very same shareholders as bogus in view of the fact that assessee had duly discharged burden cast on it to prove genuineness of transaction and identity and creditworthiness of share subscribers.
Jeetmal Choraria Vs. ACIT (ITAT Kolkata) From the aforesaid discussion it can be seen that the line of reasoning of the Honorable Bombay High Court and the Honorable Patna High Court is that issuance of notice is an administrative device for informing the assessee about the proposal to levy penalty in order to enable him […]
Bengal NRI Complex Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Since the ‘CSR’ expenses are mandatory for companies incorporated as per the Companies Act, 2013 and the expenditure have been incurred by the assessee as envisaged under the Companies Act, 2013. So we are of the opinion that it has to be allowed and we take note […]
ACIT Vs Vijay Kumar Agarwal (ITAT Kolkata) The ld. counsel for the assessee before us has raised a preliminary issue that the penalty proceedings having been initiated by the Assessing Officer against a dead person, initiation itself was bad-in-law and the penalty imposed under section 271AAB is not sustainable. He has pointed out that the […]
Shri Goutam Mukhopadhyay Vs PCIT (ITAT Kolkata) It is not in dispute that the assessee has made payment of Rs. 96,000/- to Mahua Basu Mallick for displaying articles towards Cancel Awareness Programme in Bengali language pursuant to dictations given by the assessee in English. In effect, this is nothing but a payment made for translation […]
Where assessee was having sufficient own funds at its disposal for the purpose of making investments, it could be held that no borrowed funds were utilized for making investments. Hence, there could not be any disallowance of interest under second limb of rule 8D(2) of the rules.
Whether Additions u/s 68 merely on the ground that the assessee could not produce the directors of the share subscribing companies is sustainable.
Vijay Mahipal v. ITO (ITAT Kolkata) If the assessee invests the entire consideration in construction of the residential house within three years from the date of transfer he cannot be denied deduction u/s 54F of the Act on the ground that he did not deposit the said amount in capital gain account scheme before the […]
The assessee is a company and is in the business of investment. An addition of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act, were made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee failed to explain the sources of funds for the share capital received by it at a premium. On appeal the ld.
