Ritin Lakhmani Vs PCIT (ITAT Kolkata) In this case The ld. Pr. CIT has simply cut and pasted para 5 to para 5.12.3 and also para 6 from the orders he had passed u/s 263 of the Act from the order of the Pr. CIT passed u/s 263 of the Act in the case of […]
Sanmin Trading & Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) The issue under consideration is whether addition made u/s 68 on the ground that the share capital received is seen not a genuine credit is justified in law? ITAT states that section 68 of the Act provides that if any sum found credited in the […]
Disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D could not exceed tax free income earned by assessee. Therefore, AO was directed to restrict disallowance made on account of the common administrative expenses to the amount of exempt dividend income actually earned by the assessee during the year under consideration.
The issue under consideration is whether the addition of ‘Mark to market’ Loss made by AO on account of disallowance of loss on foreign exchange forward contract loss is justified in law?
CIT Vs Dozco Infratech Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) Assessee shows that depreciation claimed by the Assessee @ 30% on Excavators, Bull dozers and Wheel Loaders has been rightly claimed and should be allowed in full as against @ 15% allowed by the Assessing Officer. Learned departmental representative vehemently contended during the course of hearing that […]
Hon’ble Supreme Court examined the omission on the part of the AO not providing opportunity to assessee to cross examine of two witnesses and held that it was a serious flaw and since the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order this omission on the part of AO makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of Principles of natural justice.
Fabline Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) This appeal preferred by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) – 7, Kolkata dated 28-02-2018 passed ex parte, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. 2. The assessee in the present case is a company, which is engaged […]
Rashmi Jalan Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata) Penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271AAB is bad in law as the showcause notice issued by the Assessing Officer does not specify the charge/s against the assessee for levy of penalty, as required by law. Thus, on this ground, the penalty is quashed. Even otherwise, […]
Amendment in section 37(1) of the Act has been introduced w.e.f. 1st April, 2015 and does not apply on the facts of the case and the disabling provision as stated in Explanation 2 to section 37(1) refers only to such corporate social responsibility expenditure as u/s. 135 of the Companies Act, 2013
Supertron Electronics Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) The admitted fact is that no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee for both the assessment years. Only a notice u/s 148 and Section 143(2)(1) of the Act was issued. Under these circumstances we have to hold that the assessment orders for […]
