Adhunik Infrastructure (P)Ltd. Vs JCIT (ITAT Kolkata) ITAT held that even if an assessee is merely developing the infrastructural facility (without operating and maintaining the same), it is entitled to deduction u/s 80-1A. Further, condition (b) laid out in sub-section (4) of section 80-IA mandates the existence of an agreement with the Government. Moreover, if […]
It is not in dispute that the assessee had been following LIFO method regularly for valuation of closing stock since its inception. It is not in dispute that the LIFO method adopted by the assessee had been accepted by the revenue in the past. It is not in dispute that the LIFO method is also one of the recognized methods for valuation of closing stock.
Gouranga Cement Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In the instant case the assessee has shown business income of ₹13,36,761/- and LTCG income of ₹86,30,498/- only. Besides the above assessee has shown unabsorbed brought forward business loss of ₹16,64,542/- which was set […]
ACIT Vs M/s Agro Life Science Corporation (ITAT Kolkata) In the present case the amount of excise duty refund and interest subsidy was treated by the AO as revenue receipt subject to tax. The reason given by AO is that the impugned amount was given to assessee after the commencement of commercial Production. However, the […]
ACIT Vs M/s Calcutta Export Co. (ITAT Kolkata) The Revenue has failed to place on record even a single document throwing light towards the fact that the payee herein has rendered any of its services in India thereby making it liable to be assessed u/s 9 r.w.s 5 of the Act. The assessee’s payee has […]
Explore Amit Parekh’s appeal against the denial of Section 54 exemption by ITAT Kolkata. Key details of the case and legal insights revealed.
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 […]
