M/s Deepak Spinners Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) We note that the issue under consideration whether the subsidy received under TUF scheme is a capital receipt or revenue receipt. The ld. CIT(A) treated it as part of fixed assets and held that said subsidy should be reduced from the cost of fixed assets. Held by […]
I.T.O. Vs Bajaj Roadways (ITAT Kolkata) Assessee had merely hired the lorries and there was no contract between assessee and the concerned payees, i.e., truck owners. Since the assessee did not delegate its liability of transportation of goods to the truck owners by way of any contract or sub-contract, therefore, the payments made by the […]
ACIT Vs SDV International Logistics Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) it is observed that the assessee company was held to be liable to deduct tax at source by the A.O. from the payment of internet connectivity charges and specialised line rental u/s 194J of the Act being in the nature of royalty by relying on Explanations 4, […]
Unabated/concluded assessment, on the date of search, deserved to be undisturbed in the absence of any incriminating material found during search and accordingly impugned addition was deleted.
Interest expenses claimed by assessee on account of delayed deposit of TDS liability was allowable under section 37(1) as the TDS amount did not represent the tax of assessee but it was the tax of the party which had been paid by assessee.
Where AO after making adequate enquiries and verification held that forward contract loss was allowable as normal business loss, CIT was not justified in treating the same as speculative one and the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
Sagar Dutta Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Penalty under section 271B justified on Assessee who was Partner in M/s. Price Waterhouse which is a partnership firm for his Failure to get his accounts audited as his remuneration was exceeding the limit specified U/s. 44AB. We find that in the instant case penalty of Rs.37,080/- was imposed […]
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. Moreover, in the balance sheet of the assessee company in the schedule to share capital, it is very clearly mentioned by way of note that the fresh share capital was raised during the year for consideration other than cash. Hence ITAT hold that provision of section 68 of the Act are not applicable in the instant case
he submission of the assessee that she is just an investor and as she received some tips and she chose to invest based on these market tips and had taken a calculated risk and had gained in the process and that she is not party to the scam etc., has to be controverted by the revenue with evidence.
Himal Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer (ITAT Kolkata) The undisputed facts of the case is that the assessee company is registered as a Private Limited Company under the Registration of Companies Act Sikkim 1961. The definition of ‘Company’ under the Income Tax Act, 1961 is given u/s 2(22A) of the Act. This definition does […]
