It is clear from bare reading of section 143(1) that change of status as done by AO does not fall within any of the clauses thereof. Also, it could not be said that change of status of assessee fell within the meaning of expression ‘an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return’ as laid down in Explanation (a) to section 143(1). Accordingly, intimation issued under section 143(1) changing the status of assessee was not in accordance with law and AO was, therefore, directed to modify the intimation accepting the return of income as it was.
DPJ Viniyog Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Assessing Officer treated the income on account of purchase and of shares under the head ‘business income’ instead of under the head ‘capital gain’ as claimed by the assessee. On Appeal CIT(A) held that assessee is making purchase and sale on a continuous basis and besides being […]
M/s. Nidhi Packers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) Learned counsel for the assessee has contended that the due date of filing of return of income for the year under consideration was extended by the CBDT by a period of 15 days and since the return originally filed by the assessee was within such extended […]
Moreover, a perusal of the balance sheet of the assessee firm as at 31.03.2012 filed along with the return of income makes it abundantly clear that sufficient own funds in the form of partners capital were available with the assessee firm at the relevant time to give the loans in question free of any interest.
ACIT Vs Lux Industries Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) Since export commission payments to non-resident agents were not taxable in India, as agents were remaining outside, services were rendered abroad and payments were also made abroad TDS under section 195 was therefore, not deductible from payment made to NRI agents. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT These […]
It was submitted by the assessee that the fees were paid for marketing service rendered outside India and hence, did not become chargeable to tax in India requiring tax deduction u/s. 195 of the Act.
The very fact that balances were shown under sundry debts itself went to prove that same had emanated out of sales of assessee and hence, income relatable thereto in the form of sales and services had been duly offered to tax in the earlier years in accordance with section 36(2) and therefore, disallowance made towards bad debts was not justified.
Where assessee made no bifurcation of land and building and claimed depreciation on entire amount, therefore the case was remanded back to AO for bifurcating consideration into land & building and depreciation was to be allowed only on building portion.
Moreover, it has to be kept in mind by the AO that merely because nomenclature of expense is given as ‘Labour Charges Paid’ does not conclusively determine the character and nature of the expense claimed.
This appeal filed by the assessee directed against the Ld. Principal of Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Kolkata for the assessment year 2012-13, wherein he has revised the order passed u/s 143(3) by the Assessing officer on 24.02.2015 by exercising his jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(the Act) on 8thMarch, 2017.
