Whether Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to adopt the value of the property sold as per DVO report for the purpose of computing capital gains in place of value adopted by Stamp Valuation Authority and considered by AO as per provisions of Section 50C(1) of the IT Act, 1961. Held, Yes If the fair market value as assessed by the DVO is lower than the value adopted by Stamp Duty Authorities for collecting stamp duty. Then value so adopted by DVO has to be adopted by the AO for the purpose of computation of LTCG.
DCIT, Kolkata Vs Rajesh Kumar Drolia- (ITAT Kolkata)- The assessee is earning job work charges as well as repairs and maintenance, which are included in job work charges, no doubt it is established that there is commercial connection between profits earned on account of repairs and maintenance and the industrial undertaking but for that source of profit is not directly from industrial undertaking. The business of industrial undertaking had directly to yield that profit to claim deduction u/s. 80-IB of the Act.
DCIT Vs Rupen Das (ITAT Kolkata)- The assessee was engaged in providing security guards to various Government and non-Government organisations and regular payment to the employees was essential to provide better services.
J. K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd. (Taxpayer) Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata)- In computing the book profit for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, the assessee was entitled to deduction in terms of clause (iii) of the Explanation to section 115JB(2) of the Act the adjustment of debit balance in the Profit and Loss Account with share Premium Account and Revaluation Reserve made on September 30, 2000, which is required to be excluded from consideration and accordingly, AO is required to determine amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation for each of years without taking said adjustment into consideration and allow deduction in respect of lesser of two amounts.
Amit Jain Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)- Assessee made a foreign trip to Roam, Dubai and Kathmandu and claimed expenses at Rs. 1,45,151/-. Assessing Officer required the assessee to produce the evidence and also business purposes. Assessee stated that foreign tour was for surveying interiors of foreign hotels and resorts at the request of his client Arneja Creation & Hotels (P) Ltd. who wanted interiors of their hotel project at Darjeeling in similar fashion as those at Kathmandu. Assessee explained that tour to Roam was for the purpose of exploring prospectus of importing special type of Marbles for interior decoration and Dubai was a stop-over en-route to Rome. Assessing Officer in the absence of evidence treated 20% of foreign trip expenses as personal in nature and disallowed a sum of Rs. 29,003/-. We find that none of the authorities below have denied that this is not for the purpose of business. Once it is not denied, the foreign trip expenses cannot be disallowed on ad-hoc basis.
DCIT, Kolkata Vs Sushma Devi Agarwal (ITAT Kolkata)- Assessee has failed to establish that disclosure of additional income in the revised return by way of declaring G. P. rate at 15% as against 6.93% shown in return filed u/s. 153A of the Act was voluntary and in good faith to buy peace with the department. On the other hand, the assessee filed the revised return only after the concealment was detected by the AO and he confronted the assessee with the same. In such circumstances, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act of Ps.14,61,678/- for concealment of income has rightly been levied by the A.O.
DCIT Vs M/s Mcleod Russel India Ltd (ITAT Kolkata) – Whether FBT is payable even in the absence of any taxable income – Whether provision of section 115-O & 115WA are pari-materia and hence FBT is leviable only to the extent of those expenses which are directly relatable to the Income taxable under the Income Tax Act – Whether when only 40% income of a tea company is chargeable to tax, even FBT liability arises on only 40% of expenses. – Revenue’s appeal allowed.
J L Morison (India) Ltd Vs ACIT (Kolkata ITAT) – It is now settled law that if, while making the assessment, the AO examines the accounts and other details, makes enquiries, applies his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and determines the income, the ld. C.I.T., while exercising his power under sec. 263 of the Act, is not permitted to substitute his own view about the computation of income in place of the income assessed by the A.O., unless the order of the A.O. is patently unsustainable in law.
The only issue in this appeal of the revenue is against the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the AO on account of employees’ contribution to ESI & PF by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. For this revenue has raised the following two grounds:
National Engineering Industries Ltd. (the taxpayer) had entered into a License & Technical Assistance agreement with Brenco Inc., USA on 19th August, 2002 which expired on 25th June, 2007. Under the agreement the taxpayer was required to pay a certain amount as royalty to Brenco Inc.
