Ashok Kumar Dutta Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Notice u/s 274 read with section 271A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The word maintained and retained has been used in section 271A of the Act .If assesseee fails to maintain or fails to retain such books of accounts and other documents . The Income tax authority […]
Since assessee had invested the sale consideration in construction of a residential house within three years from the date of transfer, deduction under section 54F could not be denied under section 54F on the ground that he did not deposit the said amount in capital gain account scheme before the due date prescribed under section 139(1).
Where assessee received capital from the partner in cash, it did not tentamount to loan or deposit and therefore, penalty under section 271D was not to be levied for violation of section 269SS.
Both AO & CIT-A have denied the claim of exemption of Rs.40,00,000/- for want of proper evidence showing the capital gains were invested in specified bonds i.e provided by the Government of India, National Highway Authority Bonds (NHAI). The deduction u/s. 54EC of the Act is permissible if the amount representing the long term capital gain is invested in specified bonds within prescribed time.
EPCOS India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata) Briefly stated facts are that the assessee in the present case is a private limited company and engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of soft ferrite components, DC and AC capacitors, metalized films etc. The assessee in the year under consideration has claimed expenses under […]
Gouranga Cement Pvt.Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) It is undisputed fact that the assessee has the earned the long term capital income by way of transfer of the business assets such as factory building, Plant & Machinery, electric installation under the head slum sale. Thus the nature of LTCG is in the nature of business […]
Sub-section (1) of Sec. 271AAB of the Act uses the word may not shall. May cannot be equated with shall especially in penalty proceeding. Using the word may in our opinion, gives a discretion to the AO to levy the penalty or not to levy, even if the assessee has made default under said provision. Therefore we hold that penalty u/s. 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory and is discretionary.
Jhabua Power Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) It is observed that the construction of Power Plant of the assessee-company was under progress during the year under consideration and in connection with the same, security deposit was required to be kept by the assessee to Commercial Tax Officer for sales-tax registration as well as with Executive […]
M/s. Tongani Tea Co. Limited Vs JCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Rule 27 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules can be invoked only to support the order appealed against on any of the grounds decided against the respondent Conclusion – The scope of rule 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 is limited only to support […]
The loan received by the assessee was squared off by way of conversion of loan into equity by the assessee through book entries without any physical outflow of funds. It is usual business practice and is part of routine corporate debt restructuring exercise carried out by various banks and financial institutions. Therefore, the said transaction could not be considered to be in violation of section 269T, so as to impose penalty under section 271E.
