AO placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Jorhat Group Ltd vs Agricultural ITO reported in 226 ITR 622 (Gau) wherein it was held that the cess on green leaf is deductible from the agricultural income only and not from the composite income.
Failure of the assessee to give details of the sundry creditors may be a ground for raising suspicion, but suspicion alone is not enough for invoking the powers of best judgment
As per the amended section 36(1)(vii) with effect from 01.04.1989, the claim of bad debt is to be allowed once it is written off in the books of account and it is not required for the assessee to prove that the debt written off as bad has actually become irrecoverable.
Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial precedents and in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the ld CITA had rightly classified the assessee as an investor and treated the gains received on sale of shares and mutual funds as short term capital gains as against business income and granted relief to the assessee. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed.
Where assessee paid amount to deliveryman to deliver the newspapers and delivery persons were nothing but casually engaged labourers and they have no other work to perform and assessee had wrongly debited the amount as commission in its books, AO was not justified in making dis allowance under section 40(a)(ia) for no TDS by only giving weight age to nomenclature and without seeing the real purpose for payment.
Kolkata bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently held that interest expenses can’t be disallowed when assessee had own funds which was more than the investments yielded tax free income.
This article deal with the issue of Long Term Capital Gain on Sale of Small Company Shares or on Penny Stocks. Article is based on ITAT Kolkata order in the case of Surya Prakash Toshniwal VS. ITO in which it held that Long-term capital gains claimed exempt u/s 10(38) cannot be treated as bogus unexplained […]
Notice as prescribed U/s. 143(2) was not properly served on assessee, ITAT Kolkata, held, that assessment made U/s. 144 of the Act was not valid & it was quashed.
Where an assessee sells an inherited capital asset, the capital gain is computed with reference to the period of holding and cost of acquisition incurred by the previous owner.
Sections 194C(6) and Section 194C(7) are independent of each other, and cannot be read together to attract disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C of the Act; and If the assessee complies with the provisions of Section 194C(6), no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is permissible, even there is violation of the provisions of Section 194C(7) of the Act.
