Where assessee was having sufficient own funds at its disposal for the purpose of making investments, it could be held that no borrowed funds were utilized for making investments. Hence, there could not be any disallowance of interest under second limb of rule 8D(2) of the rules.
Whether Additions u/s 68 merely on the ground that the assessee could not produce the directors of the share subscribing companies is sustainable.
Vijay Mahipal v. ITO (ITAT Kolkata) If the assessee invests the entire consideration in construction of the residential house within three years from the date of transfer he cannot be denied deduction u/s 54F of the Act on the ground that he did not deposit the said amount in capital gain account scheme before the […]
The assessee is a company and is in the business of investment. An addition of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act, were made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee failed to explain the sources of funds for the share capital received by it at a premium. On appeal the ld.
Interest can only be allowed when it is actually paid and conversion of unpaid interest into loan does not amount to deemed payment of interest in terms of section 43B.
Baniara Engs (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) From the reading of Sec. 50C, it is evident that Sec. 50C is a deeming provision and it extends to only to land or building or both. Section 50C can come into play only in a situation where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the […]
Impugned assessments are non-est in the eyes of law since the DCIT/ACIT, Circle-, Chennai issuing the section 143(2) notice(s) did not have jurisdiction and the assessing authority in Kolkata did not issue such scrutiny notices.
Where there was any shortfall due to difference of opinion or taxability of any items or the nature of payment falling under various TDS provisions, assessee could be declared to be assessee-in-default under section 201, but no disallowance could be made under section 40(a)(ia) and therefore, disallowance made was to be deleted.
DCIT Vs. Babcock Borsig Ltd. & Vice-Versa (ITAT Kolkata) Liabilities brought forward from amalgamating company written off by the amalgamated company (assessee) become its Business income- i.e. Profit chargeable to tax under section 41(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 as the assessee had written off the liabilities after coming to a conscious conclusion that those […]
ITAT states that AO had made specific enquiry into loan transactions of assessee based on the CASS parameter. In response to enquiries made under section 133(6), loan creditors had filed their documents/details to substantiate/prove their identity(ies), creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan transactions. AO having examined all the details had not drawn any adverse inference against any loan creditors and did not follow a view ‘unsustainable in law’ and assessment order was not the result of non-application of mind or any inadequate enquiry, accordingly, invocation of jurisdiction under section 263 was untenable.
