ACIT Vs K.B. Developers (ITAT Kolkata) Sole ground on which the disallowance is made is that the assessee had entered into these agreements, without making solid provisions to raise funds by due dates and hence it does not make any sense for a firm engaged in commercial venture to enter into these agreements. He drew […]
Cosmat Traders Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) We hold that the assessment order is bad in law for the reason that the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the assessee, has not issued a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act as required by the statute. Notice issue by the officer having no jurisdiction of the […]
Hill Queen Investment (P) Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Kolkata) In this case issue is whether the ld. Pr. CIT is correct in invoking his powers u/s 263 of the Act. In our considered view, the Assessing Officer has called for and verified all the details and documents in connection to the purchase and sale of […]
CIT could not brand the action of AO to accept the claim of assessee in respect of LTCG as a case of no enquiry on the part of AO to term it as an erroneous order and which finding could have facilitated him to usurp/interfere by exercising his revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263. Further, CIT himself ought to have conducted enquiry to bring out the fallacy as to show how the enquiry conducted by the AO was erroneous. Thus, revision was not justified as the impugned order was nothing but cut & paste exercise without application of mind.
It is undisputed fact that the consideration is paid to individuals who had experience in the business of consultancy for not to engage themselves in similar kind of business and activities for a period of 3 years. It is also not disputed that such consideration is independent and not part of the cost of acquisition of business paid to shareholders.
Blackberry Tradecom Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) We find that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order as the assessee had not responded to the notices of hearing on 09.03.2017 and 14.03.2017. The AO also passed an order u/s 144 of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that notice of […]
ACIT Vs M/s. Sattva Developers Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) From the entry made on 06-09-2011, it would be found that the Authorised Representative filed all the details excepting the explanation regarding treatment of compensation, and for this purpose the hearing was adjourned to 13-09-2011. The next entry on 19-09-2011 inter alia reads that the Authorised […]
No addition can be made to the income of the assessee in this asst. years, as in the view of the AO the outstanding liability in question is bogus and non-existent. The question of cessation of such non-existent as bogus liability does not arise. Hence, Sec. 41(1) cannot be applied. Only when there is a genuine liability and there is cessation of such liability or it is written off in the books of account, then Sec. 41(1) of the Act can be applied.
Therefore, reasons are to be examined only on the basis of reasons as recorded. Here, in this case, I note that the A.O on mistaken facts resorted to reopening which is an admitted fact on a perusal of re-assessment order (supra). Therefore, the condition precedent for reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act is found to be absent and, therefore, the reopening itself is bad in law and therefore, the impugned notice u/s 148 of the Act is quashed and therefore, the consequent action of making addition of Rs.9,80,494/- is null in the eyes of law.
ITAT held that the Assessing Officer cannot make additions merely by relying on information available in TDS Certificate i.e. Form 26AS on account of mismatch of amounts between Form 26AS and the turnover shown by the assessee in its P&L account.
