The nature of services rendered by the subsidiaries to the assessee were in respect of simple marketing services of introducing foreign institutional investors to invest in capital markets in India so that the assessee would improve its business in India.
Damodar Valley Corporation Vs. Dy. CIT (ITAT Kolkata) We find that on perusal of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act as it stood upto assessment year 2012-13, it is evident that the additional depreciation is permissible to all assessees who are engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing. In the […]
Any unabsorbed depreciation available to an assessee on 1st day of April 2002 (A. Y. 2002-03) will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001. And once the Circular No. 14 of 2001 clarified that the restriction of 8 years for carry forward
ITAT Kolkata held that VAT and CST even if not included in value of closing stock do not result in undervaluation of closing stock because of its corresponding non-inclusion in Opening Stock , Purchases and Sales.
ITAT held that it is generally accepted prudent practice that the closing stock to be valued at lower of cost or net realizable value. Further, net realizable value means the value which the goods would fetch at the time of actual sale.
The ITAT Kolkata in the above cited case held that if the additional income disclosed by assessee u/s 132(4) voluntarily without being any incriminating material found during the course of search , then department cannot levy penalty u/s 271AAA on such voluntarily disclosed income.
ITAT held that it is not in dispute that the receipt representing forfeiture of share warrants is only a capital receipt & not chargeable to tax. However, the same has been duly credited in the profit and loss account as an extraordinary item.
We understand that in case of search, assessee is to comply with law and various declaration and formalities which certainly take lot of time. From the aforesaid situation and circumstances, it is clear that there was sufficient cause which prevented the assessee to pay wealth tax in the wealth tax return
The ITAT Kolkata in the case of M/s AT & S India P. Ltd. held that the reimbursement made to holding co. by its subsidiary towards the share technology services is not taxable in the hands of receiving co. (holding co.) because the reimbursement is not an income for the holding co.
In the case of Shree Hari Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT, the Kolkata Tribunal on the issue of disallowance of alleged excess consumption claim of chemical ‘Hexane’ held that The AO has to compute income from business according to the books of accounts of the Assessee.
