Disallowance on account of interest on office loan was confirmed as assessee had taken loan from Bank for office and claimed deduction in respect of the interest expenditure incurred on this loan thus, the presumption based on mixed funds could not be applied.
Since all the lender companies were regular income tax assessee’s & having PAN as well as their ROC details were brought to the notice of AO & their respective balance sheet showed that all of them had enough creditworthiness to lend the amounts in question to assessee and assessee had squared up the loan transaction with all these lenders (except 15 Lakhs) and all the payments/TDS were made & payments were made through banking channel, therefore, the addition made by AO was untenable.
Bhagyalaxmi Conclave Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) In the remand report, the AO clearly stated that notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued by DCIT, Circle-1, Kolkata. The ld. D/R could not controvert the contention of the assessee that no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued by the DCIT-13(1), Kolkata, who […]
Bharat Elevators & Engineers Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) There are two limbs in Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. As per explanation to Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, the first limb is valuation to be made as per the prescribed method. In fact, the method for valuation of shares is prescribed under Rule 11UA […]
Poddar Rubber Industries Vs. DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) The assessee had discharged its primary onus in proving the transaction on F&O by producing the corroborating evidence before the AO/Ld. CIT(A). Both the authorities could not find any infirmity on these documents. However, the AO discarded the primary documents produced by the assessee to establish the veracity […]
Mere suspicion of likely escapement of income was not a ground for revision by invoking powers u/s 263 of the Act. Such an order was bad in law.
ITAT Kolkata quashes arbitrary disallowance by AO. Ambuja Housing wins against DCIT. Get insights into the judgment on Rule 8D and 14A.
Shares at premium were issued by assessee-company to other companies in lieu of shares held by those companies and since no cash was involved in these transactions and transactions were entered into in books of assessee-company by way of journal entries, AO was not, therefore, justified in making addition under section 68.
Art-E-Mide Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) AO noted that the assessee has paid consolidated salary (contract pay) of Rs. 8,39,960/-. Since it was shown as contractual payment made by the assessee of Rs. 8,39,960/- according to AO, Section 194C of the Act was attracted and therefore, the assessee was bound to deduct the […]
The amendment brought about by way of Explanation 2 to section 37 by Finance Act, 2014, was only with effect from 01.04.2015. ITAT held that the amendment in question is not retrospective. Expenditure incurred in CSR in accordance with guidelines issued by the Govt. of India is allowable as a deduction for both A.Y. 2013-14 and A.Y. 2014-15. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
