Once the mistake is brought to fore and is in knowledge of the authority, it is incumbent upon the authority, who is possessed with all the powers, to take a deep dive into the matter to ascertain the correct facts and understand the mistake as well as see how the effect of mistake was mitigated.
ITAT Kolkata held that non-compliance to summons issued u/s 131 of the Act or non-appearance of the directors of the subscribing companies cannot be basis for making addition as the assessee has proved the identity, creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transactions.
ITO Vs Pioneer Khadan Product Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Kolkata) On perusal of the Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 and the materials available on record, it reveals that this circular makes it very clear that the revised monetary limits shall apply retrospectively to pending appeals as well. Hon’ble apex court in Commissioner of Customs vs. Indian […]
Since additions have been deleted, the very foundation to visit assessee with penalty does not survive. Hence, no penalty is imposable upon assessee
The ITAT on the issue of addition under Section 68 observed that in the impugned Assessment Order, the AO has passed the impugned Assessment Order in a hurried manner even without pointing out any defect or discrepancy in the evidences and details furnished by the assessee. Therefore, additions under Section 68 were ordered to be deleted.
Manish Goel Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) ITAT find that in the case of Swati Bajaj (supra), the facts before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, were that the assessee has claimed exempt income under section 10(38) of the Act at Rs.28,23,500/- from sale of equity shares of a listed company namely Surabhi Chemicals & Investment Limited. […]
ITAT Kolkata held that original assessment was made under section 143(3)/147, i.e. scrutiny assessments. Further, there was no fresh information available with the revenue. Hence, reopening of assessments relying on the same information is invalid.
ITAT Kolkata held that the transaction of purchase of old gold jewellery in exchange of sale of new jewellery is covered under rule 6DD (d) and hence exempted from the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act. Further, there is no violation of provisions of section 40A(3) as there is no actual transaction of payment of cash.
ITAT Kolkata held that the claim the depreciation on goodwill which has resulted from the scheme of amalgamation which was duly approved by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court cannot be rejected.
ITAT Kolkata held that interest on income tax refund is a ‘debt claim’ payable by the Revenue in terms of Article 12(3)(a) of the India-Italy Treaty and thus such interest is not taxable and no TDS ought to be done by the AO.