Income Tax : In the case of DCIT vs. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT held that manufacturing or supplying a product acc...
Income Tax : Public Education Society Vs DDIT (Exemptions) (Bangalore ITAT) Since the expenditure incurred by the assessee was more than 93% of...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held In the case of Shri Isharbhai Chotabhai Patel Vs. CIT that ld. Commissioner not justified in interfering in t...
Income Tax : 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, ...
Income Tax : In the case DCIT Vs. Maithan Smelters Ltd. the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT held that the interest subsidy, transport subsidy and power ...
In the case of DCIT vs. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT held that manufacturing or supplying a product according to the requirement or specification of a customer by using material purchased from a person other than such customer is not included in the definition of the “Work”
Public Education Society Vs DDIT (Exemptions) (Bangalore ITAT) Since the expenditure incurred by the assessee was more than 93% of the gross receipts, no part of the gross receipts are liable to be taxed in the year under consideration, as the balance amount was set apart for application in the next year.
ITAT Ahmedabad held In the case of Shri Isharbhai Chotabhai Patel Vs. CIT that ld. Commissioner not justified in interfering in the discretion exercised by the AO without any plausible reason. The estimated opinion formed by the AO can only be interfered
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.
The Assessee had paid a sum of Rs.9,22,160/- on account of Sewing and Processing Charges without deducting TDS on the same. The AO invoked the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and disallowed the entire amount paid on account of Sewing and Processing Charges.
In the case Manoj Garg Vs. ITO the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT held that both Central Excise Refund and Sales Tax Remission are eligible deductions u/s 80IC and that the CIT was not justified in initiating proceedings u/s 263 of the Act
In the case Shri B L Dasraj Urs Vs. ITO the Hon’ble Bangalore ITAT held that show cause notice u/s 274 is defective if it does not spell out the grounds on which penalty is sought to be imposed.
In the case ITO Vs. Smt. Mala Gupta the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT held that slight difference in the name of the person does not mean that it is not the same person provided the genuineness of the transaction is proved.
A sum of Rs.7 lakhs, shown to have been received as gift from Shri Jamaluddin Sheik Fareed, was treated as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not furnished confirmation letter from the party.
