DCIT Vs. Hooghly Dock & Port Engineers Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata)- The assessee is under the Ministry of Shipping, Govt. of India. Assessee’s business is in ship building, ship repairing and general engineering. The ld. A.O. made an addition of Rs. 2 crores, which was stated as received from Government for upkeep of plant & machinery. The ld. A.O. was of the view that this is the revenue expenditure and the amount was received, as per the ld. A.O., on revenue account. He, therefore, treated it as income of the assessee during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal.
DCIT Vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) – In the assessment order the A.O. did not accept this claim of the assessee on the ground that for the assessment years 2001-02 to 2005-06 the department had gone in appeal before the Hon’ble High Court against the decisions of Hon’ble ITAT, Kolkata in this matter. Thus the A.O. disallowed an amount of Rs.l,35,87,876/- as excess depreciation claimed. On appeal ld. CIT(A ) after taking into consideration of the various documents filed by assessee before him and following the decisions of the ITAT, Kolkata from 2001-02 to 2005-06 deleted the disallowance of Rs. 1,35,87,876/- made by AO. It is further observed that the filing of appeal before the Hon’ble High Court against the decision of this Tribunal for A.Yrs.2001-02 to 2005-06 will not have any effect since the Hon’ble High Court has neither set aside the orders of the Tribunal nor granted any stay. Respectfully following the same we dismiss the appeal of the revenue.
Though there are nine grounds raised by assessee there are only two issues involved in this appeal. One issue in ground no.3 is relating to confirmation of dis allowance of Rs. 25,000/- made by AO and further enhancement of dis allowance by Rs. 1,56,609/- u/s 14A of the IT Act.
Addl. CIT Vs. J.A. Land & Housing Development India Limited (ITAT Kolkata) – Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271D for the assessment year 2004-05 in respect of M/s. J.A. Land & Housing Dev. India Limited and also in assessment years 2005-06 & 2006-07, as well as under section 271E of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2007-08 in the case of M/s. J.A.M. Chemical Works Limited. Assessing Officer was of the view that violation of Section 269SS which defines ‘loan or deposit’ & Section 269T defines ‘loan or deposit’ and the common word loan means lending a sum of money by one party to another upon agreement to repay.
ITO Vs M/s. St. Joseph Construction (ITAT Kolkata)- Ld. CIT(Appeals) after considering the assessees submissions directed the Assessing Officer to reject the books of accounts of the assessee-firm since the assessee had concealed huge contractual receipts to the tune of Rs. 54,55,543/-. He also directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the profit @ 8% on the entire receipts of Rs. 1,12,29,347/- equivalent to Rs. 8,98,348/-, net of all expenses including salary and interest payments to partners.
ITO Vs. Landmark Finance Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata)- The facts are not disputed that the assessee was dealing shares as trader in shares as well as holding the shares as investment. It is not disputed that the assessee had kept both the portfolios separately and the mode of valuation of stocks held as investment and stock held as stock-intrade was different. The investments were valued at cost and it was shown in the balance sheet only whereas stock-in-trade was valued at cost or market price, whichever was lower and the loss was, accordingly, claimed in the Profit & Loss A/c. and allowed to the assessee.
Jalan Finvest Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata Vs. (ITO) (ITAT Kolkata)- In ground no. 3 raised by assessee it was mentioned that the revised computation at the time of assessment was not considered. However it is observed from the impugned order that the ld. CIT(A) has mentioned the grounds raised by assessee as well as written submissions filed by assessee. But he disposed of two grounds i.e. the first issue which relates to disallowance of service tax by allowing the ground of assessee and the second issue in respect of disallowance of office maintenance has been dismissed by observing that assessee has not pressed this ground and submitted a letter in this regard.
DCIT Vs. Elgie Engineering Works (ITAT Calcutta)- On perusal of the bills of parties, it is seen that the payments are for manufacture and supply of items such as Buckstay Slings, Economiser coils, Lifting beams etc. The bills show that the price is inclusive of the material which indicates that the transactions were in the nature of sales contracts.
Income-tax Officer Vs. North East Enterprises (P) Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata)- As observed by the ld. A.O., the receipts of Rs. 50 lakhs and Rs.41,50,000/- ICD for the assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 respectively were not satisfactorily explained before him, which led him to make addition of the said amounts as assessee’s undisclosed investment. In our considered opinion, while deciding the issue the ld. C.I.T.(A) ought to have called for the remand report as the receipts of ICD amounts were not satisfactorily explained before the ld. A.O., which were shown as payments.
Since the assessment year involved in this appeal is 2005-06 Rule 8D of the IT Rules is not applicable in the present case keeping in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Pvt. Ltd. In this case the ld. CIT-Admn has issued jurisdiction u/s 263 of the IT Act based on the order of the ITAT, Special Bench, which has been subsequently over ruled by Hon’ble Bombay High Court (supra). Therefore we are of the view that invoking of provision of section 263 of the IT Act is not justifiable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence we squash the order of ld. CIT-Admn and allow the appeal of assessee.
