Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT has deleted penalty u/s 271B in the case of Dr. Shantanu Datta in I.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2017 as there was a bona fide belief entertained by the assessee in the facts and circumstances of the case and the same constituted a reasonable cause for the failure of the assessee to comply with the requirement of section 44AB.
When the CIT is satisfied with the reasons given by the Assessing Officer, he in not once again give separate reasons or repeat the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer and then give his approval for the same.
That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the Aa in treating the income of Rs. 12,00,000/- received towards service charges under the head ‘income from house property
M/s Mirik Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT (ITAT Kolkata) The purpose of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act is to tax the benefit extended by private limited company to its shareholders holding shares not less than 10% as beneficial owner of shares (not being shares entitled to a fixed rate of dividend income). There is […]
Dongfang Electric (India) P Ltd Vs DCWT (ITAT Kolkata) Assets deployed for service activities are treated as productive assets and accordingly the construction / set up of office and service centre by the assessee and used as such for its business purposes would be outside the ambit of wealth tax in the same manner in […]
Bijoy Shribastab & Anr. Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) It is not in dispute that the assessee had not maintained books of accounts for his transport business. It is not in dispute that the assessee owns less than 10 vehicles and is accordingly entitled to offer income u/s 44AE of the Act. It is not the […]
When purchase and sale of shares were supported by proper Contract Notes, shares were purchased and sold through recognised broker and sale considerations were received by Account Payee Cheques, the transactions could not be treated as bogus and loss on account of client code modifications should be allowed.
Show cause notice issued in the present case u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not strike out the inappropriate words. In these circumstances, we are of the view that imposition of penalty cannot be sustained.
The only issue is to be decided as to whether the CIT-A justified in confirming the order of AO in determining the long term capital gain at Rs. 29,05,83,769/- against the claim of assessee as long term capital loss of Rs.25,05,20,775/- in the facts and circumstances of the case.
A division bench of the ITAT Kolkata comprising N.V.Vasudevan, Judicial Member and Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member were ruled that the provisions of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act would not applicable to Current Account Transactions.
