When all requisite details were already on record with supporting evidences and same were duly examined by AO, the order of AO was not erroneous and prejudice to interest of Revenue.
The word held used in section 2(14) implies right over a capital asset. In the instant case, right over the property was held by assessee for the period of 36 months, by paying first installment and builder issued a provisional letter of allotment and from that period, assessee had been enjoying legal right over the said property.
Recently in, Phillips India Ltd. vs. ACIT, ITAT Kolkata held that Deduction of lease rentals paid towards cars taken on finance lease allowed while computing income
ITO Vs. Wiz-Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Kolkata) The main plank on which the AO made the addition was because the directors of the share subscribers did not turn up before him. In such a case the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. (supra) 159 ITR 78 and the Hon’ble […]
This appeal by the revenue arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-20, Kolkata [in short the ld CIT(A)] in Appeal No.1044/CIT(A)-20/CC-1(1)/15-16 dated 25.07.2016 against the order passed by the ACIT, CC-1(1), Kolkata
Betterman Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs I.T.O. (ITAT Kolkata) In the instant case the assessee has acquired certain fixed assets on lease and has charged depreciation on the same. The assets being the godown building, office building, power house building, Weigh Bridge room and machinery. The ld. AO on the basis of the statement made by […]
Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Narang Overseas Pvt Ltd vs ACIT reported in 111 ITD 1 (Mum ITAT ) (SB) had held that mesne profits received by assessee for wrongful deprivation of use and occupation of property constitutes capital receipt and hence not chargeable to tax. Respectfully following the same , we hold that the ld CITA had rightly granted relief to the assessee by holding that the receipt of Rs 90 lacs by the assessee is a capital receipt not chargeable to tax.
Where assessee had not proved actual rendition of the foundation services and also whether alleged service providers possessed necessary expertise and infrastructure to render the foundation services, AO was justified in making addition of payments made to them, under section 69C.
In respect of assessments completed prior to date of search that have not abated, the scope of proceedings under section 153A has to be confined only to material found during search. As no material, whatsoever, was found in the course of search, question of making addition on account of unexplained share capital could not have been the subject-matter of proceedings under section 153A.
Where assessee, a non-resident, had received foreign allowances outside India for the services rendered in Netherlands, the foreign allowances received by assessee were not liable to tax under section 5(2).
