I.T.O Vs. M/s. Shree Gouri Shankar Jute Mills Ltd (ITAT Kolkata)-It is not in dispute that the advance was made for purchase of Jute during the course of business of the assessee. Since the supplies could not materialize, the assessee to protect its money started charging interest
since the only reason for denial of exemption u/s 11 was absence of registration u/s 12AA (which was granted to assessee society on 29.10.2010 with effect from 1.4.2010) for the relevant assessment years and on no other ground
The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee advanced a sum of Rs. 2 crores on 20.5.1992 to Broker Shri.Pallav Sheth under portfolio management scheme. The said broker is supposed to manage the trading portfolio of shares and securities on behalf of the assessee.
Infinity Infotech Parks Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Revision u/s 263 is duly authorized where there is a mistake apparent from the records which itself proves that the order passed on this issue by the Assessing Officer was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
ITAT held in ITO Vs M/s.Last Peak Data Pvt. Ltd that if the assesse was an existing recognized Software Technology Park (STP) then it would be considered at par at of Special Economic Zone(SEZ) and exemptions available to SEZ would also be available to STP
JCIT Vs M/s Gillander Arbithnot & Co. Ltd (ITAT Kolkata) 1.Assessee would be allowed deduction of payment of employees contribution of ESI and PF if it paid the same before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1). 2. Pooja & Temple expenses would be allowed as a business expenditure because it was related with the harmony of business so business expenditure.
ITAT Kolkata held In the case of Shri Jayant Kr. Bhura vs. ITO that the loss arising to the assessee upon cancellation of the forward contracts was referable to and related to the assessee’s export business and arose out of the export business.
ITAT Kolkata held In the case of DCIT vs. M/s G.K.K. Capital Markets (P) Limited that in case AO has not recorded satisfaction about the correctness of the claim of the assessee and straight away calculated the disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D, this disallowance is not maintainable.
D.C.I.T. Vs. Sunita Khemka (ITAT Kolkata)- AO has treated the transactions as bogus only on the basis of the suspicion that the difference in purchase and sale price of these shares are unusually high. It is a settled law that assessment cannot be made on the basis of suspicion or surmise.
ACIT Vs. Sri Sandip Somany (ITAT Kolkata)- We find that the assessee being a Joint Managing Director of M/s Hindustan Sanitary Ware and Industries Ltd was in receipt of commission based on net profits of the company determined and finalized in the subsequent year
