The issue under consideration is whether income from sale of tea manufactured and sold from tea leaves purchased from third parties was from non-agricultural activity and therefore, was not eligible for deduction of 60%?
The issue under consideration is whether the deletion of adjustment made u/s 92CA(3) of the Act on account of interest on loan and on account of corporate guarantees is justified in law?
Order under section 143(1) denying benefit of exemption under section 11 in case of granting of deemed registration by CIT after expiry of time limit of six months was contrary to the legal principles and thus, rejection of assessee’s application for rectification under section 154 was invalid.
This is a simple case of acquiring shares of certain companies from certain shareholders without paying any cash consideration and instead the consideration was settled through issuance of shares to the respective parties. That is, section 68 of I.T. Act, 1961 does not apply to cases of purchase of share assets and allotment of shares by the appellant when purchase and allotment are under a barter
The question raised in appeal is challenging the action of CIT(A) in confirming the addition made on account of Section 14(A) r.w.s. 8D(2)(ii)&(iii) of the Rules.
Statement recorded during survey, under section 133A, does not have a evidentiary value on its own and, therefore, no addition was maintainable on the basis of statement recorded during the course of survey as there was no evidence supporting the statement.
ACIT Vs New Horizons Limited (Kolkata High Court) It is observed that physical verification of stock was carried out by the assessee-company in the month of January and February, 2015 as a matter of internal control and surplus stock of Rs.4,70,54,450/- found on such physical verification was duly incorporated by the assessee-company in its books […]
Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT The captioned appeal filed by the Assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2014-15, is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-21, Kolkata, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) […]
We note that the fact that neither the statement relied on by the authorities below were provided to the assessee nor any cross examination was allowed to prove the veracity of the statement. We note that the fact that in the statement of third party, the name of the assessee was not implicated. Even otherwise, according to Learned Counsel, no adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee on the basis of untested statements without allowing opportunity of cross-examination.
The issue under consideration is whether the addition u/s 68 on account of share capital and share premium by treating the same as unexplained cash credit is justified in law?
