Addition on account of unexplained investments under section 69 could not be made as whatever deposits were made were either out of the past savings or from the loans taken from relatives.
The ITAT Kolkata recently deleted an addition made on interest receipt by the CIT(A) in the case of Guruji Mercantile Pvt. Limited Vs ITO, citing lack of jurisdiction.
In present facts of the case, the condonation of delay was allowed for 902 days by placing its reliance over the Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and it was observed that Income-tax law is a complex subject and meeting its compliance requirements is dependent on services by experts of the subject matter. Accordingly the delay was condoned and the appeal was allowed on merits.
ITAT Kolkata held that addition of advances received by the company as deemed dividend in terms of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as advances are received from the concerns purely as business transaction.
Explore the ruling in the case of Kartick Das Bairagya Vs ITO at ITAT Kolkata, which clarifies the conditions for non-imposition of penalty under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Kolkata held that in respect of any adjustment proposed to be made u/s 143(1)(a), a prior intimation is required to be served on the assesse. Failure to issue such prior intimation to the assessee before making an adjustment by way of disallowing the claim of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act is unjustified.
ITAT Kolkata ruled in Kishorepur Paschimanchal SKUS Limited Vs ITO that delay in filing ROI does not deny a taxpayers deduction claims under Section 80P of IT Act 1961
ITAT Kolkata held that depreciation is allowable on asset of the assessee if acquisition is claimed as application of income. Notably, after change in law in section 11(6), assessee has not claimed acquisition of property towards application of income while computing the total taxable income.
ITAT Kolkata held that addition on account of lesser amount considered as claw back payment unsustained as in case, a higher amount is to be considered as claw back payment, then a higher amount is to be allowed as a deduction not character of income
ITAT Kolkata held that penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act not leviable as turnover of the assessee is less than INR 1 Crore. Accordingly, the assessee is outside the purview of section 44AB of the Income Tax Act.
