United Provinces Sugar Company Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) A perusal of the propositions of law laid down in all these case-law, takes us to the conclusion that the ld. CIT(A) cannot touch or delve on any issue which does not arise from the order of assessment and which was outside the scope of or […]
Sales Tax subsidy received for expansion of assessee’s existing industry was capital in nature as the purpose of the same was for the expansion of the existing industry of assessee. Moreover, the amounts which were not taxable in the normal computation could not be included while computing the book profit because such amounts did not really reflect a receipt in the nature of income and could not form part of the book profit.
Peerless General Finance & Investment Company Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) It is observed that the issue relating to the assessee’s claim for Long-Term Capital Loss arising from the sale of Government Securities by applying the Cost Inflation Index was disallowed by the Assessing Officer in the assessment completed under section 143(3). However, the set […]
ACIT Vs Overtop Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) when the assessee as well as the lenders had discharged the onus upon them to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan transaction, the AO could have disbelieved the transaction only on the basis of reliable material to disprove the same. In this case the […]
DCIT Vs EIH Associated Hotels Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) It is noted that the staff recruitment expenses were incurred only exclusive for the purpose of business and hence allowable expenditure. We note that the expenses on account of employees’ relation expenses to the tune of Rs. 3,78,242/- was incurred for efficient functioning of the business which […]
DCIT Vs Sisecam Flat Glass India Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) Monitoring fees paid by the assssee to DEG Bank, Germany qualified as ‘interest’ both under Income-tax Act, 1961 as well as the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India & Germany and the payment made in question was not liable to Income-tax under the Act in terms […]
Supreme Court has held that issue of a legally valid notice u/s. 143(2) is mandatory for usurping jurisdiction to frame scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act and in the absence of a valid notice u/s 143(2) the scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) cannot be framed and omission to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is not a curable defect.
ACIT Vs Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) In the instant case, as will be evident from the perusal of the agreements, as enclosed in the Paper book and relevant portions of which are discussed as above, all the agreements under consideration are not for a specific work, they are for development of facility as a […]
ACIT Vs M/s. Mackintosh Burn Ltd (ITAT Kolkata) The issue is whether the addition in question can be made u/s 41(1). The ld. CIT(A) has already concluded that no additions can be made u/s 41(1) of the Act. He agreed that the propositions of law cited by the assessee are in its favour and hence addition […]
Even though for whatever reason/over-sight the assessee had not disclosed the loan as liability in the balance sheet and since the incurring of interest on it has been disallowed being personal in nature and the source of loan is from Vijaya Bank as noted by the AO, the loan amount of Rs.2,33,950/- cannot be taxed as it is a liability and not income, so, I am inclined to direct the deletion of Rs. 2,33,950/-.
