ITO Vs Shri Ganesh Cement Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) In this case assessee company has shown receipt of fresh subscription to its share capital of Rs. 50.30 crores during the relevant assessment year (AY 2012-13). According to AO for the purpose of proper verification and examination into the existence, and creditworthiness of the share subscribers […]
Binod Kumar Mahato Vs PCIT (ITAT Kolkata) The reasons for scrutiny selection through CASS, is to examine the cash deposits in savings bank account, as these are more than the turnover. The Assessing Officer stuck to these reasons and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. Aggrieved with this order, the assessee carried the […]
Sushila Birla Memorial Institute Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) There is no dispute of the fact that the assessee Trust exists solely for philanthropic purposes and not for the purpose of profit. There is also no dispute of the fact that the annual receipts of the assessee do not exceed the amount prescribed. The only issue […]
Nilkantha Saha Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) AO Cannot Simultaneously Reject and Rely Audited Books And Make Additions Under Section 68 For Cash Deposit During Demonetisation Period Out Of Cash Sales From a perusal of the cash deposits/ banking transactions, the Ld. A.R drew our attention to the fact that as per the audited books, especially […]
Disallowance on account of interest on office loan was confirmed as assessee had taken loan from Bank for office and claimed deduction in respect of the interest expenditure incurred on this loan thus, the presumption based on mixed funds could not be applied.
Since all the lender companies were regular income tax assessee’s & having PAN as well as their ROC details were brought to the notice of AO & their respective balance sheet showed that all of them had enough creditworthiness to lend the amounts in question to assessee and assessee had squared up the loan transaction with all these lenders (except 15 Lakhs) and all the payments/TDS were made & payments were made through banking channel, therefore, the addition made by AO was untenable.
Bhagyalaxmi Conclave Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) In the remand report, the AO clearly stated that notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued by DCIT, Circle-1, Kolkata. The ld. D/R could not controvert the contention of the assessee that no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued by the DCIT-13(1), Kolkata, who […]
Bharat Elevators & Engineers Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) There are two limbs in Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. As per explanation to Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, the first limb is valuation to be made as per the prescribed method. In fact, the method for valuation of shares is prescribed under Rule 11UA […]
Poddar Rubber Industries Vs. DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) The assessee had discharged its primary onus in proving the transaction on F&O by producing the corroborating evidence before the AO/Ld. CIT(A). Both the authorities could not find any infirmity on these documents. However, the AO discarded the primary documents produced by the assessee to establish the veracity […]
Mere suspicion of likely escapement of income was not a ground for revision by invoking powers u/s 263 of the Act. Such an order was bad in law.
