In the case ITO Vs. M/s. Nupur Carpets Pvt. Ltd. the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT held by converting the stock-n-trade into investment, it does not alter the character, nature and intention of that particular transaction especially in the context of capital gain versus business income.
In the case DCIT Vs. Maithan Smelters Ltd. the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT held that the interest subsidy, transport subsidy and power subsidy received by the assessee are eligible for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act.
The Assessee had paid a sum of Rs.9,22,160/- on account of Sewing and Processing Charges without deducting TDS on the same. The AO invoked the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and disallowed the entire amount paid on account of Sewing and Processing Charges.
In the case Manoj Garg Vs. ITO the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT held that both Central Excise Refund and Sales Tax Remission are eligible deductions u/s 80IC and that the CIT was not justified in initiating proceedings u/s 263 of the Act
In the case ITO Vs. Smt. Mala Gupta the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT held that slight difference in the name of the person does not mean that it is not the same person provided the genuineness of the transaction is proved.
In the case M/s. Ashok Trading Co. Vs. ITO the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT held that as per sub-section (2) of 115WD, if the assessee had not filed the return of Fringe Benefit but in the opinion of the AO he should have filed the return
In the case of Pankaj Plastic Industries Vs. ITO the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT held that The materials found in the course of survey would not be the basis for making any addition in the assessment. The word “may” used in section 133A (3)(iii) of the Act makes it clear that the materials collected
In the balance sheet of the assessee, A.O. noted that there was a term loan of Rs.7,58,09,730/- from Axis Bank. Further the assessee has invested in fully paid equity shares of Pollen Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs.6 crores.
The AO initiated the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income and for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and sustained the penalty in respect of addition made due to provision for sundry debtors and provision for suspense.
The present appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order passed by CIT(A) confirming the disallowance made u/s 35D in respect of expenditure incurred related to issue of shares and computation of book profit u/s 115JB.
