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 M/s. Ashok Trading Co. Vs. ITO the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT held that as per sub-section (2) of 115WD, if the assessee had not filed the return of Fringe Benefit but in the opinion of the AO he should have filed the return
In the case of Pankaj Plastic Industries Vs. ITO the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT held that The materials found in the course of survey would not be the basis for making any addition in the assessment. The word “may” used in section 133A (3)(iii) of the Act makes it clear that the materials collected
In the case Vinod Kumar Surana Vs. ITO the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT held that the fact of withdrawal of deduction u/ 80IB of the Act in the subsequent years when the same were duly granted by the ld. AO in the initial assessment years per se becomes a debatable issue and hence same cannot be dealt in the proceedings u/s 154
In the case of Neeraj Murarka Vs. ITO the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT held that the fact of cash withdrawals made by assessee, cash balance held by assessee has never been questioned and nor any fact to the contrary has been brought on record.
The assessee is a dealer of sarees and AO while framing the assessment disallowed karigar /embroidery charges by invoking the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the act for non-deduction of TDS u/s 194C of the Act.
The Assessing Officer while computing the total wealth of the assessee added the value of the let-out properties i.e. godown and offices in the total wealth of the assessee for the purpose of calculating the wealth-tax.
The assessee-company is a Civil Contractor as well as trading in sarees and fabrics. The assessee-company filed its return of income on 28-09-2008 declaring total income at Rs.3,07,285/-. As noted by AO, the assessee could not produce the books of account and supporting bills and vouchers.
It cannot be said that the land owned by the assessee was a vacant land. The character of the land has changed and it was no more plot of the land. Urban land, no doubt, is subject to the tax under the Wealth Tax Act, but, in our opinion, it will cover only the vacant land.
In the present case, the assessee was neither absolute owner nor had surplus capital. It was providing complex services. The assessee being partnership firm was having warehousing business and local trade license authorities have accepted the assessee’s firms business to carry out warehousing business.
