ITAT disallowed the expenses claimed by by stating that a property not used for business purposes cannot be treated as a business asset. The property in question was sold and a new property was purchased using the proceeds. The expenses incurred on the new property, including watch & ward expenses and electricity expenses, were disallowed as the property was not shown as a business asset and depreciation was not claimed.
ITAT Kolkata ruled in Mahendra Kumar Parakh vs. ITO that cash deposit during demonetization was from past savings, directing AO to delete the addition of Rs. 2,50,000.
ITAT Kolkata held that reassessment proceeding initiated in the name of nonexistent amalgamated company is without jurisdiction, void ab initio and is liable to be annulled.
Disallowance made by CPC on account of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI u/s 36(1)(va) rws 2(24)(x) of Act u/s 143(1) of Act is correct.-ITAT Kolkata
ITAT Kolkata held that addition of sales reversal entry alleging the same as unexplained expenditure is unjustified and unsustainable in law.
Alleged interest income is from the Fixed Deposits, which were made by the assessee in the course of business and in order to comply the statutory requirements of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006. Therefore, the same should be treated as part of the business income and is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and should not be treated as income from other sources.
Read the detailed analysis of the ITAT Kolkata’s ruling in the case of Community For Social Work vs. ITO, highlighting jurisdictional discrepancies in the assessment process under the Income-tax Act.
ITAT Kolkata held that provisions of section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act doesn’t apply to cash payments when ultimately the amount is deposited in the bank account of the payee.
If no cash is involved , section 68 of the Act treating as share capital/share premium as unexplained cash credit is wrong as transaction of allotment of shares by way of book adjustment and provisions of section 68 of the Act are not attracted.
Assessee tried to recover forfeited money and when all efforts to recover forfeited money went in vain the same been claimed as expenditure
