Rule 8(1) states that income from business of tea growing & manufacturing is computed as 40% of total income determined under Income Tax Act
ITAT Kolkata’s decision, invalidating reassessment for Vansa Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO due to non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) within stipulated timeframe.
ITAT Kolkata deletes the penalty imposed on Devnadi Advisory Pvt. Ltd. due to alleged non-compliance of notice under section 271B of the Income Tax Act
ITAT Kolkata has ruled that the delay in filing Form 67 should not lead to the denial of relief under Section 90 of the Income Tax Act. The case involves Sobhan Lal Gangopadhyay’s appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A)), concerning the claim of tax relief paid in the Republic of Korea. This judgment follows a similar decision in the Sonakshi Sinha case.
ITAT Kolkata held that invoking deeming provisions under section 50C and adopting value of property as per Stamp Valuation authority without referring the matter to Departmental Valuation Officer unsustainable. Accordingly, matter restored to jurisdictional Assessing Officer.
ITAT Kolkata held that addition u/s 68 unwarranted as AO failed to conduct an independent enquiry post submission of documents by the assessee relating to identity, genuineness of the transaction, and credit-worthiness of the subscribers.
ITAT disallowed the expenses claimed by by stating that a property not used for business purposes cannot be treated as a business asset. The property in question was sold and a new property was purchased using the proceeds. The expenses incurred on the new property, including watch & ward expenses and electricity expenses, were disallowed as the property was not shown as a business asset and depreciation was not claimed.
ITAT Kolkata ruled in Mahendra Kumar Parakh vs. ITO that cash deposit during demonetization was from past savings, directing AO to delete the addition of Rs. 2,50,000.
ITAT Kolkata held that reassessment proceeding initiated in the name of nonexistent amalgamated company is without jurisdiction, void ab initio and is liable to be annulled.
Disallowance made by CPC on account of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI u/s 36(1)(va) rws 2(24)(x) of Act u/s 143(1) of Act is correct.-ITAT Kolkata
