-
ITAT - Over 2000 days appeal-filing delay condoned in view of favourable HC ruling.
Surajmal Exports vs. ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9663 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
ITAT - UCO Bank is not a "company" under Companies Act and therefore is not covered under newly inserted Explanation 3 to Sec 115JB.
UCO Bank vs. DCIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9590 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
S. 271(1)(c): A penalty notice u/s 274 which does not strike out the irrelevant portion & which does not specify whether the penalty is for “concealment” or for “furnishing inaccurate particulars” renders the penalty order void
Suvaprasanna Bhattacharya vs. ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9576 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
ITAT - In view of Explanation 5 to Sec 271(1)(c) in respect of income offered after search but in the return filed u/s 153A, immunity from penalty granted.
D.C.I.T, Kolkata vs. Deepak Choudhury
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9574 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
ITAT - Sec 10AA deduction available to assessee registered as an STP unit.
ITO vs. Last Peak Data Pvt. Ltd
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9536 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 10AA
-
ITAT - Exempted capital gains shall not enter the stream of the expression ‘accumulated profits’ for the purpose of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e).
Manoj Murarka vs. ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9485 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
S. 50C should not be invoked if difference between stamp value and declared consideration is nominal, S. 14A/ Rule 8D does not apply to share application money, Pure foreign exchange hedging transactions cannot be treated as speculative transactions
ITO vs. LGW Limited
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9452 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 50C
-
ITAT - Sale of tea-estate as a “going concern” is not a slump-sale u/s 50B as not a case of sale by lock, stock and barrel.
DCIT vs. Tongani Tea Co. Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9429 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
The AO cannot treat a transaction as bogus only on the basis of suspicion or surmise. He has to bring material on record to support his finding that there has been collusion/connivance between the broker and the assessee for the introduction of its unaccounted money. A transaction of purchase and sale of shares, supported by Contract Notes and demat statements and Account Payee Cheques cannot be treated as bogus
DCIT vs. Sunita Khemka
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9298 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
ITAT - Assessee (a partner in CA firm) was under bonafide belief that his accounts need not be subjected to tax audit u/s. 44AB. Sec. 271B penalty deleted.
Sankar Datta vs. DCIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9285 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section. 271B
-
S. 14A Rule 8D does not apply to shares held as stock-in-trade. AO cannot apply Rule 8D to make a disallowance without showing how the assessee's disallowance is wrong
DCIT. vs. G. K. K. Capital Markets (P) Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9209 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section. 14A
-
ITAT - Family arrangement is a valid mode of transfer. Capital gains addition deleted.
Kamal Bhandari vs. ITO
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9105 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
ITAT - The assessee’s representative conceding the evasion of tax is of no consequence because assessee cannot be made to suffer for the wrong advice of counsel. Specific Concealment of Income has to be established for levy of Penalty.
M/s. Chaurasia & Sons. Vs. I.T.O.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8944 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
ITAT - Roaming charges paid by assessee to other telecom operators do not attract TDS u/s 194J/194I /194C as provision of roaming services do not involve any 'human intervention'.
Vodafone East Ltd. vs. ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8888 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Sections. 194C, 194I
-
ITAT - Payment of roaming charges by telephone operator does not fall under the ambit of TDS provisions as roaming facility does not require human intervention and are not ‘FTS’.
Vodafone East Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-7, Kolkata
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8858 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=42777&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Comparison with the items of jewellery found at the time of search with wealth tax return, which were filed much earlier was putting an onerous task on assessee to prove something impossible. Assessee cannot be asked to prove something which is beyond its control
DCIT. Vs. Raj Kumar Saraogi
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8716 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
ITAT - The onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by the assesese is on him. If he disputes liability for tax, it is for him to show either that the receipt was not income or that if it was, it was exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. In the absence of such proof, the Income Tax Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income.
Shri Som Dutt v. ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8710 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
ITAT - Profit that has been attributable to tradng activity corresponding to conversion of stock-in- trade into investment is to be treated as ‘business income’. Converting stock-n-trade into investment does not alter the character, nature and intention of that particular transaction.
ITO. Vs. M/s. Nupur Carpets Pvt. Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8643 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
ITAT - Interest subsidy, transport subsidy and power subsidy received by the assessee are eligible for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act.
DCIT. Vs. M/s. Maithan Smelters Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8642 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section. 80IB
-
ITAT - Even oral contract is sufficient, as such once labour payments are made, clear-cut contract exists between the parties. Provisions of section 40(a)(ia) attracted.
I.T.O. Vs. M/s. Talwar Brothers Pvt. Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8641 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.