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 […]
ACIT Vs M/s. Sattva Developers Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) From the entry made on 06-09-2011, it would be found that the Authorised Representative filed all the details excepting the explanation regarding treatment of compensation, and for this purpose the hearing was adjourned to 13-09-2011. The next entry on 19-09-2011 inter alia reads that the Authorised […]
No addition can be made to the income of the assessee in this asst. years, as in the view of the AO the outstanding liability in question is bogus and non-existent. The question of cessation of such non-existent as bogus liability does not arise. Hence, Sec. 41(1) cannot be applied. Only when there is a genuine liability and there is cessation of such liability or it is written off in the books of account, then Sec. 41(1) of the Act can be applied.
Therefore, reasons are to be examined only on the basis of reasons as recorded. Here, in this case, I note that the A.O on mistaken facts resorted to reopening which is an admitted fact on a perusal of re-assessment order (supra). Therefore, the condition precedent for reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act is found to be absent and, therefore, the reopening itself is bad in law and therefore, the impugned notice u/s 148 of the Act is quashed and therefore, the consequent action of making addition of Rs.9,80,494/- is null in the eyes of law.
ITAT held that the Assessing Officer cannot make additions merely by relying on information available in TDS Certificate i.e. Form 26AS on account of mismatch of amounts between Form 26AS and the turnover shown by the assessee in its P&L account.
United Provinces Sugar Company Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) A perusal of the propositions of law laid down in all these case-law, takes us to the conclusion that the ld. CIT(A) cannot touch or delve on any issue which does not arise from the order of assessment and which was outside the scope of or […]
Sales Tax subsidy received for expansion of assessee’s existing industry was capital in nature as the purpose of the same was for the expansion of the existing industry of assessee. Moreover, the amounts which were not taxable in the normal computation could not be included while computing the book profit because such amounts did not really reflect a receipt in the nature of income and could not form part of the book profit.
Peerless General Finance & Investment Company Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) It is observed that the issue relating to the assessee’s claim for Long-Term Capital Loss arising from the sale of Government Securities by applying the Cost Inflation Index was disallowed by the Assessing Officer in the assessment completed under section 143(3). However, the set […]
ACIT Vs Overtop Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) when the assessee as well as the lenders had discharged the onus upon them to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan transaction, the AO could have disbelieved the transaction only on the basis of reliable material to disprove the same. In this case the […]
