The assessee is a private limited company mainly engaged in the activity of running a football team. It filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 declaring Nil Income.
The sole issue involved in this appeal of assessee is against the action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.5,01,00,000/- made by AO u/s. 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on account of bogus share capital including share premium
New Pooja Jewellers Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) In this case we find that these advances have subsequently been recorded as sales of the assessee firm and that these sales have been accepted as income by the AO during the year. He has not disturbed the sales of the assessee. When a receipt is accounted for […]
Computation of indexed cost of acquisition by the AO, taking the cost of acquisition at the cost price of 15.04.1976 without considering the provisions of section 55(2) clause (b) and taking the base cost inflation index at 406 is bad in law and we direct that Rs. 8,30,000/- must be taken as the cost of acquisition instead of Rs.1,122/-.. So we order accordingly.
Impugned disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) does not apply in a case involving short deduction of TDS. ITAT therefore go by the very reasoning and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned disallowance.
Neha Chowdhary Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) Bogus capital gains from penny stocks- It emerges that from a perusal of these case files that although the assessee has produced her documentary evidence before the lower authorities about the impugned sums to be in the nature of income derived from the sales of shares, the fact remains […]
The issue under consideration is whether the addition u/s 68 is justified in case of issuance of shares in exchange of shares?
Price Waterhouse & Co. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Conclusion: Since the addition on basis for which AO reopened assessment had already been disclosed by assessee in the return of income filed by him u/s 139(1), AO having not carried out the scrutiny assessment within the prescribed statutory limit, could not be given another innings for […]
The issue under consideration is whether payment of minimum guarantee royalty for purchasing right to reproduce film-music is considered as capital expense or revenue expense?
Vidya Bharati Society for Education & Scientific Advancement Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata) Merely because the contributions from students were collected under the nomenclature of development fee cannot ipso facto lead to conclusion that it cannot be considered to be corpus contribution. It is true that in terms of section 12(1) read with section 11(1)(d) of […]
