In the case of Suvaprasanna Bhatacharya vs ACIT, ITAT Kolkata held that although the satisfaction need not be recorded in a particular manner but from a reading of the assessment order as a whole such satisfaction should be clearly discernible.
In Mohan Jhangiani vs ACIT, Kolkata Tribunal held that Non-consideration of the relevant provisions of the Act while forming a belief that income has escaped assessment is not permissible as per law. Further, the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 by the Learned AO
In the Case of ACIT vs Sri Pawan Kumar Jhunjhunwala, ITAT Kolkata held that solicitor is the agent of the client. The client makes over the money to the solicitor for some work being done by the solicitor as his agent.
In the case of ITO vs Snowtex Investment Ltd, the Kolkata Tribunal held that the claim of the assesse for set-off of loss from share dealing should be allowed from the profits from F&O in share transactions, the character of the income being the same and before application of the Explanation
ITAT held in ITO Vs Ramesh Kumar Jajodia that if the assessee had filed its original return u/s 139(1) but forgot to claim the speculative loss in its original return and filed revised return u/s 139(5) and claimed the loss in its revised return then the speculative loss should be allowed to be carried forward.
ITAT Kolkata held In the case of ITO vs. M/s LGW Ltd that share application money is only in the nature of an offer to buy shares made by the assessee. It is only after the offer is accepted by the company; the Assessee becomes the shareholder in a company.
ITAT Ahmedabad held In the case of West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation vs. ACIT that in the case of CIT vs Vasisth Chayt Vyapar Ltd. 330 ITR 440 (Delhi) , it was held that the real income theory was still relevant and recognition of income in terms of Prudential Norms of RBI did not deviate from the mercantile system of account u/s 145 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Kolkata held in case of ITO v Smt. Gayatri Chakroborty that where the transactions are mutual in nature or there is benefit or no benefit to each other, then these kind of transactions will not come under the purview of section 2(22)(e).
Admittedly, the assessee had made payments to M/s Pickme Feeds in cash by directly depositing cash in the bank account of M/s Pickme Feeds for supply of poultry feeds to the assessee. The assessee in turn supplies the poultry feeds to various farmers in the rural areas.
DCIT V/s. M/s AT & S India Pvt Ltd.(ITAT Kolkata) Reimbursement of Information technology costs does not result in income in the hands of the recipient an hence, the payments are allowable deductions and not fall within the mischief of section 40(a)(i) read with section 195.
