-
The govt. of West Bengal has decided to grant the subsidy by way of IPA for setting up of large/medium/small scale eligible unit which is prescribed in the WBIS 2000 and the unit has to be set up in either group B or C areas prescribed in the said scheme (WBIS 2000). We note that the assessee had set up a new unit in the Bankura District of West Bengal area which falls in the group C area of the Scheme WBIS 2000.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3 (1), KOLKATA. VERSUS M/S. SOVAISPAT LIMITED
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22636 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83491&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act does not preclude the assessee from filing a revised return of income. More so, when assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act was also passed in the present case of the assessee, thus the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act loses its importance. And we find in this case the assessee has rightly filed the revised return of income u/s 139(5) of the Act within the stipulated time frame as per statute.
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-13 (2) , KOLKATA. VERSUS M/S. PADMA LOGISTICS & KHANIJ PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22627 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83475&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The right to file a revised return of income does not lapse with the issuance of intimation under section 143(1) of the Act. Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act cannot be said to be a completion of assessment
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs M/s. Padma Logistics & Khanij Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22613 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 143(1)
-
CIT(A) has taken care of the TDS issue and the assessee has not preferred to challenge the action of Ld. CIT(A) which crystallizes. Therefore, the direction of the Ld. CIT(A) to the AO to disallow the TDS credit claimed in respect of the retention money not shown as income by the assessee in the revised return and to allow it in the year in which the assessee declares retention money as its income takes care of the TDS credit even if erroneously claimed by the assessee in respect of the retention money.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (3) , KOLKATA VERSUS M/S. EMC LIMITED
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22612 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83451&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Reasons recorded by the AO that the assessee was beneficiary by way of CCM in derivative transactions was factually incorrect. This shows non application of mind by the I.T.O to the information received by the AO from the ADIT (Inv.), Unit-1(3), Ahmedabad. The law requires that the Assessing Officer prima facie applies his mind to the information received, prior to forming a reasonable belief, that income subject to tax has escaped assessment and thereafter record reasons. When reasons are based on wrong facts, which were not verified, then it is a clear case of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer to the material received.
AEREO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD. VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4 (3) , KOLKATA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22610 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83456&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The outside lorry/truck owners do not have any responsibility or liability towards the principal, then it cannot be held that these outside parties were privity to the contract between the assessee and its principal. Therefore, the payment made to the outside lorry/truck owners do not come or fall within the purview of section 194C of the Act.
Bimal Kumar Sikaria Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22576 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
AO got swayed away with the statement recorded on oath of Mr. Swapan Ranjan Dasgupta during survey conducted at the premises of M/s. Herbicure. We have reproduced Question no. 22 and 23 and answers given by Shri Swapan Ranjan Dasgupta, wherein he admits to provide accommodation entries in lieu of cash. This information we should say can be the tool to start an investigation when the assessee made the claim for weighted deduction.
RAJDA POLYMERS VERSUS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME CIRCLE-36, KOLKATA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22357 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82791&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO had proceeded to make the addition on the basis that the assessee had sold the shares of M/s. TUIHL which was a foreign company. However, during the appellate proceedings the assessee was able to produce documents to substantiate that it (M/s. TUIHL) was indeed is an Indian company which was duly registered with ROC, Kolkata since year 1981 and, therefore, is an Indian Company.
INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WD-8 (1) , KOLKATA VERSUS M/S. MERLIN RESOURCES PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22355 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82795&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The fact remains undisputed is that ITO Ward-3(2) Jaipur who had issued sec. 148 notice dated 23.03.2016 did not have territorial jurisdiction to assess the appellant / taxpayer. The latter assessing authority i.e., ITO Ward- 46(1) Kolkata who framed the assessment had never issued any sec. 148 notice at all. We observe in these peculiar facts and circumstances that the relevant re-assessment framed in assessee’s case is not substantiate for want of a valid sec. 148 notice issued by the Assessing Officer having territorial jurisdiction.
GIRISH CHAND AGARWAL VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-46 (1), KOLKATA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22347 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82733&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
At the time of hearing before the Tribunal nothing has been brought on record by the ld. counsel for the assessee to establish that these expenses were wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of his business. Keeping in view the same as well as for the specific reasons given by the AO, it is of the view that the disallowance made by the AO on account of driver’s salary and fuel and lubricant expense was fully justified and the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed by the same.
AVINASH SHAW VERSUS ITO, WARD – 31 (1), KOLKATA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22317 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82558&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Provision of section 269T of the Act, which is in seriatim to section 269SS of the Act, was introduced to eliminate the proliferation of black money in the society at large and not otherwise. As per CBDT circular, noted above, the assessee should explain the reasonable cause.
AUTO FUEL CENTRE VERSUS JCIT, CIRCLE-1, DGP
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22265 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82411&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO has examined the issue of deduction claimed u/s 80IA for the power unit of the company. AO had examined the documents and explanations submitted before him. Thereafter the AO had taken one of the plausible view of netting up of interest expenses with interest income in view of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of ACG Associated Capsules (P) Ltd. Therefore, under these circumstances it cannot be said that the order of the AO is erroneous.
M/S SINGHAL ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CC-4 (1), KOLKATA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22249 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82360&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 10(38) Bogus capital gains from penny stocks: As the detailed explanation of the assessee does not sufficiently discharge the onus on proving the source of impugned deposits, the impugned addition should be restricted to 30% only with a rider that same shall not be treated as a precedent in any other assessment year
Neha Chowdhary vs. ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22238 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 10(38)
-
There is no estoppel in law and therefore merely because in few cases the Department had issued NIL tax deduction certificate u/s 195 cannot be the sole reason for claiming that every payment made by the assessee to foreign attorneys was not liable to tax in India.
Sri Subhatosh Majumder Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21158 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 9(1)(vii)
-
Case file suggests that the clinching factual position herein is that the assessee had declared additional income of ₹12,56,69,73/- in its disclosure petition(s) before the Settlement Commission on 18.03.2014 for assessment year(s) 2010-11 to 2013-14. It is an admitted fact that the said additional income had not been included in the corresponding computation(s) finalized earlier.
M/S MAITHAN STEEL & POWER LTD. VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21155 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82161&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee intends to avail the opportunity provided under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Bill, 2020.
Prabir Mitra Vs Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21137 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
There was no PE of the Assessee in India during the relevant previous year, the question that would now require consideration is with regard to taxability of the FTS. Considering the fats of the case, as per Article 13(2) of the India-UK DTAA, FTS income of non-resident is taxable @ 15% on gross receipts. Whereas as per section 115A of the Act, FTS is taxable @ 20% on gross receipts. The provisions of the India-UK DTAA is more beneficial, the Assessee is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of section 90(2) of the Act.
ACIT (IT) , CIRCLE-1 (1) , KOLKATA VERSUS M/S GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD., C/O MR. SUBRATA MITRA, GARDEN REACH SHIPBUILDERS & ENGINEERS LTD., KOLKATA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21058 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81934&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The contention of the assessee's AR seems to hold much water in as much as the provision of section 5 of the Act does not provide any room for bringing to tax any income by way of notional income. On the matter of debit balance of one of the partners, find that the impugned debit balance is not a new finding by the AO, rather it has been carried forward from the past several years and there were no additions made on this count by the AO in those years.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 33, KOLKATA VERSUS INDIA HOUSING
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21044 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81871&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Shares being issued against shares is nothing but barter system. Therefore no cash is involved in these transactions. Hence the provision of section 68 does not attract.
DSR Impex Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21026 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 68
-
AO failed to point out any new tangible material to reopen the assessment u/s 147, thus the reassessment proceedings in the assessee's case is not valid.
Price Waterhouse & Co, Kolkata Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20983 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.