Dis allowance on account of VAT not pad of Rs.1,78,334/- was made by the AO only because of erroneous auditor’s report and it has been brought to our notice how the error has occurred and we find that assessee’s contentions are backed by records, therefore, we being the final fact finding authority, find that it was the mistake of the auditor who has wrongly given the figures and made wrong observation because of which the AO made the dis allowance. However, the AO before making the dis allowance could have asked the assessee to explain before making the dis allowance.
The Kolkata ITAT recently held that the circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) is binding on the department and it cannot take a plea that such a circular is not valid or is against the provisions of law.
When the transaction of purchase of shares are held to be outside the purview of the provisions of Sec.92 of the Act, we fail to understand as to how the excess price paid for acquiring shares can be treated as a deemed loan and an international transaction. We therefore find no merits in the argument advanced by the learned DR.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Kolkata bench recently pronounced that Assessing Officer cannot pass an ex parte order without mentioning any reason for confirming the addition on merits under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Kolkata bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently held that interest income earned from nationalized banks shall be treated as business income for which deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act can be claimed.
Pankaj Dutta Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) Issuance and service of notice under section 143(2) is mandatory and not procedural. If the notice is not served within the prescribed period, assessment framed would be invalid and such irregularity cannot be treated as curable under section 292BB. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:- This […]
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata bench recently ordered that the penalty u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act cannot be levied for the delayed deduction of TDS amount.
The fact that the assessee had given his personal property as collateral security for enabling M/s. Palsons Drugs Pvt. Ltd to obtain loan and other credit facilities is not in dispute. Under the circumstances the proposition of law as laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ‘Pradip Kumar Malhotra vs CIT’ (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the case.
CIT(A) has been given power u/s. 251 of the Act to confirm the order of AO reduce, enhance or annul assessment order under the provision of Act but there is no power available to Ld. CIT(A) to give direction to AO for reopening the case of other years.
Tribunal was not justified in holding that the failure to initiate penalty proceedings in the course of the assessment did not render the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Commissioner had the jurisdiction to revise such an order.
