Where assessee paid amount to deliveryman to deliver the newspapers and delivery persons were nothing but casually engaged labourers and they have no other work to perform and assessee had wrongly debited the amount as commission in its books, AO was not justified in making dis allowance under section 40(a)(ia) for no TDS by only giving weight age to nomenclature and without seeing the real purpose for payment.
Kolkata bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently held that interest expenses can’t be disallowed when assessee had own funds which was more than the investments yielded tax free income.
This article deal with the issue of Long Term Capital Gain on Sale of Small Company Shares or on Penny Stocks. Article is based on ITAT Kolkata order in the case of Surya Prakash Toshniwal VS. ITO in which it held that Long-term capital gains claimed exempt u/s 10(38) cannot be treated as bogus unexplained […]
Notice as prescribed U/s. 143(2) was not properly served on assessee, ITAT Kolkata, held, that assessment made U/s. 144 of the Act was not valid & it was quashed.
Where an assessee sells an inherited capital asset, the capital gain is computed with reference to the period of holding and cost of acquisition incurred by the previous owner.
Sections 194C(6) and Section 194C(7) are independent of each other, and cannot be read together to attract disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C of the Act; and If the assessee complies with the provisions of Section 194C(6), no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is permissible, even there is violation of the provisions of Section 194C(7) of the Act.
ITAT Kolkata held that the consequence, which were to be fall on account of non-observation of section 40A(3) must have nexus to the failure of object of introducing of the provision. Therefore, no disallowance can be made if the transactions do not defeat the object of Sec 40A(3) in as much as there genuiness is not challenged and they can be tracked end to end.
Assessee carried on a systematic and regular activity in the nature of business and therefore the income from granting the premises on sub-license was to be assessed under the head income from business.
The critical question before special bench: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, no arm’s length rate of interest was required to be charged on the loan granted by the non-resident assessee-company to its wholly owned subsidiary Indian company M/s. Datex-Ohmeda (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Datex)?
Show cause notice under section 274 not spelling out the specific ground on which penalty under section 271(1)(c) was sought to be imposed, was defective and, therefore, penalty was deleted.
