Sri Pradip Kumar Basu Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) It is observed that the long-term capital gain of Rs.6,14,674/- had arisen to the assessee as a result of residential property sold on 12.06.2013 and in order to claim exemption on account of long-term capital gain under section 54EC of the Act, the assessee was required to […]
AO had to confront assessee with the material collected behind the back of assessee, if he chosen to use the material against assessee and that he should provide assessee an opportunity of cross-examination. Not having done so made the evidence in question bad in law.
Hamilton & Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) We note that the payments in question was made to Mrs. Rekha Jalan and Mr. S.K. Jalan, who were directors of the assessee company. These payments were made pursuant to agreements for payment of bonus and commission copies of which were furnished to the Revenue. The payments […]
Tapasi Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) It is observed that all the four donors who had given the gifts in question to the assessee during the year under consideration were engaged in the business and in the returns of income filed regularly for the year under consideration, the business income earned by them was duly […]
ACIT Vs K.B. Developers (ITAT Kolkata) Sole ground on which the disallowance is made is that the assessee had entered into these agreements, without making solid provisions to raise funds by due dates and hence it does not make any sense for a firm engaged in commercial venture to enter into these agreements. He drew […]
Cosmat Traders Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) We hold that the assessment order is bad in law for the reason that the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the assessee, has not issued a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act as required by the statute. Notice issue by the officer having no jurisdiction of the […]
Hill Queen Investment (P) Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Kolkata) In this case issue is whether the ld. Pr. CIT is correct in invoking his powers u/s 263 of the Act. In our considered view, the Assessing Officer has called for and verified all the details and documents in connection to the purchase and sale of […]
CIT could not brand the action of AO to accept the claim of assessee in respect of LTCG as a case of no enquiry on the part of AO to term it as an erroneous order and which finding could have facilitated him to usurp/interfere by exercising his revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263. Further, CIT himself ought to have conducted enquiry to bring out the fallacy as to show how the enquiry conducted by the AO was erroneous. Thus, revision was not justified as the impugned order was nothing but cut & paste exercise without application of mind.
It is undisputed fact that the consideration is paid to individuals who had experience in the business of consultancy for not to engage themselves in similar kind of business and activities for a period of 3 years. It is also not disputed that such consideration is independent and not part of the cost of acquisition of business paid to shareholders.
Blackberry Tradecom Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) We find that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order as the assessee had not responded to the notices of hearing on 09.03.2017 and 14.03.2017. The AO also passed an order u/s 144 of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that notice of […]
