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.
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.
