ITAT Kolkatta held in Swew Benefit Company Vs DCIT that for disallowing expenses u/s 14A i.e expense incurred for non-taxable income, there had to be some logical strong basis like rule 8D or something else but it could not be disallowed on ad-hoc basis.
DCIT vs. M/s Presidency Exports & Industries Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) We do agree that in a matter of condonation of delay when there is no negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide approach, the liberal approach has to be adopted to advance substantial justice. In the fact
ITAT held In the case of Das Plaza vs. ITO that the closing stock has to be taken at the end of the year not in the middle of the year. If any addition has to be made that to be made only difference in the value as at the end of the year.
In the case of Ms. Chaurasia & Sons. Vs. I.T.O the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT held that mere confirmation of addition will not lead to conclusion that penalty is leviable, unless it is established that assessee has concealed its income.
ITAT Kolkata has held in the case ITO Vs. Piyush Jalan that where lending of money is substantial part of the business of the concerned company and any advance or loan is made by it to a shareholder in the ordinary course of its business
The ITAT Kolkata in the case of DCIT Vs. Trade Apartment Ltd. held that the delay in filling appeal cannot be condoned if the same is attributable to gross negligence and inaction on the part of revenue.
In the case of DCIT Vs. Raj Kumar Saraogi the Kolkata ITAT held that comparison with the items of jewellery found at the time of search with wealth tax return, which were filed much earlier was putting an onerous task on assessee to prove something impossible
ITAT Kolkata held In the case of Sri Som Dutt v ACIT that whenever, the money has been received from overseas, then the onus is on the Assessee to prove that all the transactions are bonafide when he is claiming that the amount has been received as Capital Receipt.
In the case ITO Vs. M/s. Nupur Carpets Pvt. Ltd. the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT held by converting the stock-n-trade into investment, it does not alter the character, nature and intention of that particular transaction especially in the context of capital gain versus business income.
In the case DCIT Vs. Maithan Smelters Ltd. the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT held that the interest subsidy, transport subsidy and power subsidy received by the assessee are eligible for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act.
