This appeal as well as Cross Objection (CO) by the Revenue and assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Kolkata dated 01.12.2015. Assessment was framed by DCIT, Circle-11, Kolkata u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
ITO Vs. M/s Borojalingh Tea Co. (ITAT Kolkata) The question before us arises so as to whether the assessee is entitled for claiming the interest expense against the interest income in the given facts and circumstances. It is undisputed fact that the loan was provided to the parties on interest and accordingly interest income was […]
This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Burdwan dated 20.01.2016 and the solitary issue involved therein relates to the deletion by the ld. CIT(Appeals) of the disallowance of Rs.32,06,445/- and Rs.3,58,000/-
When the bank issues a bank guarantee on behalf of the assessee, all it does is to accept the commitment of making payment of a specified amount to the beneficiary on demand and it is in consideration of this commitment that the bank charges of fee which is termed as ‘bank guarantee commission’
DCIT Vs. Yash Raj Films (P) Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) In this case stand of assessee has been that assessee company had deducted TDS on the negative processing charges paid to Kodak India Ltd. as per the provisions of section 194J of the Act, as the negative processing involves specific tasks of editing, enhancement of quality […]
CIT Vs. Mitsubishi Corporation India P. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) Due to difference of opinion on below issues between Justices S Muralidhar and Prathiba M Singh, Delhi High Court, has referred the Mitusubishi’s TDS case to Chief Justice for appropriate orders:- (i) Whether the ITAT fell into error in holding that Section 40(a) (i) of […]
Where assessee could not furnish any explanation regarding source of receipt of money, except saying that it was loan borrowed from parties, the addition made by the AO under section 69 was justified.
Provisions of RERA are prospective in nature. The penalty under Sections 18, 38, 59, 60, 61, 63 and 64 is to be levied on account of contravention of provisions of RERA, prospectively and not retrospectively. These provisions, therefore, cannot be said to be violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 20(1) and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
Mattapalli Chalamayya Charitable Trust Visakhapatnam Vs CIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam) If the activities of the trust are genuine, at the stage of commencement of institution, registration has to be granted automatically and claim u/s 80G of the Act can be followed with grant of registration. Ld. Commissioner (Exemptions) did not reject the request of the assessee […]
It was held that petition shall not be entertained with the observation that since the Government machinery was geared up, the petitioner could not urge or seek directions to postpone the decision of implementation from 01.07.2017.
