-
Assessee has failed to demonstrate the total turnover before expenses, which was required by the assessing officer and ld CIT(A), thus assessee has failed to substantiate his claim, hence there should be made an addition of INR 17,95,000 as unexplained income u/s 68 of the Act.
Rajnarayan Prasad Singh, Guwahati Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24390 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 68
-
Since the right in the flat was acquired at the time of booking on 08.11.2009, accordingly the right in the property was held for more than three years before its transfer on 23.11.2013 and therefore, capital gains were, in the nature of Long term capital gains.
Ashok Behl Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24310 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
Expense incurred by the assessee should be treated as revenue expenditure.
M/s Landis+ Gyr Ltd. Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23013 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
It is settled law that at the time of registration, the authority need to satisfy himself that the objects are charitable in nature and the activities being carried out are genuine, meaning thereby that the activities are in consonance for achieving the charitable objects and nothing else.
KALYAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-DURGAPUR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22987 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84192&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The set apart amount u/s. 11(1) of the Act, should be calculated on gross revenue income and not on net income after expenses.
Eastern Zonal Cultural Centre Vs Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22972 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 11(1)
-
Revenue did not dispute that that it is not the profit but turnover criteria which is more suitable involving such a factual backdrop of eligible and non eligible units since the former may or may not involve deduction in earlier years under the provisions of the Act whereas the turnover benchmark is always applicable even it involves losses as well.
DCIT Vs M/s. A.P. Fashions Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22950 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 80IA
-
Once the AO has himself not suggested that the impugned sums have been in fact accrued or arisen to them department's impugned action adding the trust's balance in these two taxpayers' hands does not deserve to be concurred with.
Shri Manoj Kumar Dhupelia Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22878 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
We find no reason to sustain the PCIT's foregoing stand that the assessee's income derived from its holiday homes has to be bifurcated on ownership basis (supra).
THE ELECTRO URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-12, KOLKATA.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22856 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83987&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As the interest free funds are in excess of the investments, the presumption that arises is that interest free funds have been invested in investments which do not yield taxable income as held in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. We find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Thus, we uphold the deletion of the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules. Disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(iii), CIT(A) has directed the AO to consider only those investments which have earned dividend during the year for the purpose of computation of disallowance under the Rules.
DCIT, CIRCLE-8 (2) , KOLKATA VERSUS M/S. SPML INFRA LIMITED
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22849 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83965&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
A plain reading of section 43(5)(a) makes it clear that the impugned loss cannot be regarded as speculation. The Act clearly excludes hedging foreign currency transactions for the definition of speculative transaction.
ARVIND METALS AND MINERALS PVT. LTD. VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE-4 (1) , KOLKATA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22844 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83938&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the present case vehicle used for display of advertisement cannot be said to have used in the business of running the same on hire and the assessee therefore is not entitled to a higher rate of depreciation on such vehicles.
Tapan Kumar Biswas Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22838 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
No reference to any cess was made by the legislature in Sec.40(a)(ii) and thus, deduction for the same was allowable.
M/s. Philips India Limited. Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22837 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
As combined peak credit of both bank accounts need to be taken to work out the element of undisclosed investments made by the assessee for the undisclosed transactions. From the opening balances in both the banks, it is understood that this is not the initial year, wherein, the assessee has made the undisclosed transaction. Since, this is the assessment year in which the fact of undisclosed bank accounts were discovered, the undisclosed investment needs to be taxed separately.
SMT. LAXMIYADAV VERSUS INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WD-23 (4) , KOLKATA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22830 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83930&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Conclusion of the ld. CIT(A) that the merger in question, approved by the Hon'ble High Court is a colourful device, is illegal and without any factual or legal base. Invoking GAAR provisions, when they are not applicable for the impugned assessment year is also bad in law. The dichotomy in the order of the ld. CIT(A) is clear from the fact, that he chooses to tax capital gains in question, in the hands of the assessee company, though he holds that the merger is a sham transaction.
DCIT, CIRCLE-11 (1) , KOLKATA VERSUS M/S. JCT LIMITED AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22829 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83931&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Invoking GAAR provisions, when they were not applicable for the impugned AY is also bad in law. The dichotomy in the order of the CIT(A) was clear from the fact that CIT (A) chooses to tax capital gains in question in the hands of the assessee company, though CIT (A) held that the merger was a sham transaction.
DCIT Vs M/s. JCT Limited.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22826 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
Only those immovable properties which are held as capital assets and is in nature of land or building or both are only covered u/s 56(2)(vii). We agree with the contention of the ld AR that where the term property has been defined to mean a capital asset as so specified and where an immoveable property as so specified being land, building or both is not held as an capital asset, it will not be subject to the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. In the instant case, therefore, where the agricultural land doesn't qualify as falling in the definition of capital asset, provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) cannot be invoked.
SH. PREM CHAND JAIN VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE- SAWAI MADHOPUR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22824 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83910&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As noticed that due to the bad conditions of the road and since it is hilly terrain due to the incessant rain and bad weather the conditions of the road are bad and, therefore, the truck drivers incurred expenses for repairs of the trucks, (frequent tyre burst etc.) for which the local repair shops insist on cash and were reluctant to give any bills/vouchers.
M/S. CAPITAL TOURS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WD-12 (1) , KOLKATA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22804 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83827&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Simply because there is difference in the claim of assessee in respect of TDS credit and the corresponding income, the AO has made the addition which cannot be accepted when the Form 26AS gives a different picture.
Smt. Nirmali Bhadra Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22750 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
ITAT - Demerger not conditional upon the 'registration' of the leasehold property in the name of the assessee. Demerger expenses claim u/s. 35DD allowed.
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs M/s. Asian Hotels East Limited
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22745 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 35DD
-
A perusal of the assessment order and the details filed by the assessee before the AO, in reply to the queries raised by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings demonstrate that this is not a case of lack of enquiry as stated by the ld. Pr. CIT in the last paragraph of his order. This statement is factually incorrect. AO has called for information on the claim of deduction of expenditure made by the assessee and in response thereto, the assessee has filed voluminous details. Payments were made on receipt of claim bills through banking channels. Tax was also deducted at source from these payments.
SKAN ENTERPRISE VERSUS PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12, KOLKATA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22735 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83722&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.