When income which was the foundation on which he based his belief of escapement of income was absent /disappeared then AO’s very usurpation of jurisdiction was on non-existing jurisdictional fact which rendered his usurpation of jurisdiction to reopen the assessment legally untenable and so null in the eyes of law and therefore, the reassessment made by AO without jurisdiction was quashed.
Dalia Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT & Anr. (ITAT Kolkata) Citation: Dalia Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT &Anr. (ITAT Kolkata); ITA No.2818/Kol/2013 & ITA No.04/Kol/2014; 27/04/2018; 2006-07 Conclusion: Disallowance of miscellaneous expenditure was without application of mind by AO as disallowances of expenses cannot exceed the amount of actual expenses claimed by assessee. Held: In […]
DCIT Vs Maco Corporation India (P) Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) There is absolutely no provision for withdrawal of recognition under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. Hence, the so-called withdrawal of recognition under section 35(1)(ii) in the hands of the payee organizations could not affect the rights and interests of assessee herein for claim of weighted deduction […]
CIT(A) has in his order relied upon circumstantial evidence and human probabilities to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called rules of suspicious transaction
Mahavir Jhanwar Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) The sole issue that arises for my adjudication is whether the Assessing Officer was right in rejecting the claim of the assessee that he had earned Long Term Capital Gains on purchase and sale of the shares of M/s Unno Industries. The AO based on a general report and […]
Since all the three conditions as required u/s. 68 i.e. the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction was satisfied by assessee and the onus shifted to AO to disprove the materials placed before him, therefore, without doing so, the addition made by AO based on conjectures and surmises could not be justified.
Nikhil Chandra Mitra Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) Disallowance of Rs.60,000/- made on account of accounting charges by invoking the provisions u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee submits that the person whom the amount was paid was not a qualified professional and he was an accountant writing the accounts and hence 194J of the Act, […]
Since assessee had brought all the relevant material to substantiate its claim that transactions of the purchase and sale of shares were genuine and AO had brought nothing controverting material to deny the same, therefore, the long term capital gain (LTCG) on sale of shares of M/s. KAFL claimed as exempt by assessee could not be treated as bogus simply on the basis of some reports of investigation wing.
DCIT Vs Maa Amba Towers Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties supra, we hold that the ld CITA had rightly directed the ld AO to treat the warehouse rentals as income from business and consequentially allow the expenditure claimed in the return as business expenditure. Accordingly, Ground raised by […]
No commission element was embedded in sale of prepaid SIM cards/ prepaid vouchers/ recharge coupons and, therefore, assessee was not liable to deduct tax under section 194H.
