-
Commercial expediency of an expenditure amounting to Rs.25.74 lakhs on employee benefits is not justified for a company having only 14 employees, especially when the activity carried on by the assessee during the year under consideration was limited.
Highrise Marketing Pvt. Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20444 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
Not adjudicating upon all the foregoing issues on merits suffers from an apparent mistake on the face of record.
Linde India Ltd Vs JCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20443 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
Assessee fails to bring on record any tangible material to substantiate he was carrying jewellery of 700gms of M/s Vikram Jewellers therefore the addition made by AO is upheld.
Vivek Rohatigi Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20348 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 69A
-
Assessee had entered into the lease agreement with the PSIDC on 28.10.1993 for a period of three years upto 31.10.1996. The said lease agreement sufficiently indicates that no landlord / tenant existed between two parties after 31.10.1996. We further find from the arbitration award to this effect dated 28.04.1997 that the assessee had been awarded damages with interst than rental amount of the property in issue.
TALWAR BROTHERS PVT. LTD. VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-9 (1), KOLKATA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20292 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78616&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As the predominant object of the assessee is to carry out charitable purpose and not to earn profit, it would not lose its charitable character. The surplus derived from running the STD booths, pharmaceutical shops etc. was incidental and ancillary to the dominant object of taking care of physically and mentally challenged persons and uplifting them and enabling them to survive and live in this society. In view of the above discussion we direct the AO to grant benefit of Section 11 of the Act to the assessee.
PASCHIMBANGA RAJYA PRATIBANDHI SAMMILANI VERSUS ADIT (EXEMPTION) -II, KOLKATA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20260 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78454&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Physical verification of stock was carried out by the assesese-company on its own as a matter of internal control in the month of January and February, 2015 well before the search and the surplus stock found on such physical verification having been accounted for by the assessee-company in its books of account in the month of March, 2015 itself, the same, in our opinion, cannot be treated as unexplained investment of the assessee, which is chargeable to tax under section 69.
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS M/S. NEW HORIZONS LIMITED
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20121 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77874&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Once an order u/s 127(2) was passed unconditionally transferring the jurisdiction over the appellant's case to the charge of ACIT, Ranchi then by virtue of such an order, the jurisdiction enjoyed by ACIT at New Delhi in terms of Section 124 read with Section 120(1) & (2) stood abrogated. As of June, 2016 (when the notice u/s 143(2) was issued), the jurisdiction of the assessee was vested with AO, Ranchi and not AO, Delhi and since no valid notice was issued by AO, Ranchi, Sec. 127(4) cannot be applied.
Rungta Irrigation Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20106 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 127
-
There is no dispute about assessee’s carrying on licensed bookmaker’s business with RCTC and therefore, he made the impugned cash payment to the said club only as ‘ operational charges’ has nowhere been doubted. The said operational charge relate to setting on horse racing conducted in the club on Saturdays/Sundays/Holidays only.
HARIDAS SOM VERSUS I.T.O. WARD 22 (3) , KOLKATA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20099 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77775&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Allegations that the sale of shares transactions was suspicion is not supported by facts. No revision can take place based on mere suspicion. Pr. CIT has not controverted the submissions and evidences filed by the assessee. When the assessee has furnished all the details, including the purchase details and sale details, CIT has not explained, as to how he came to a conclusion that there is an error that caused prejudice to the interest of the revenue.
SMT. ARCHANA SALARPURIA SALARPURIA JAJODIA & CO VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20010 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77421&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There cannot be addition made on account of statements recorded under survey proceedings conducted u/s 133A of the Act and therefore the addition made in the present case in the hands of assessee is not maintainable only for the reason that the addition was made by Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) is solely based on the statement of Shri Ajoy Kr. Das which was alleged to have been confirmed by the assessee during the course of survey.
ROHITASWA DAS VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE-46, KOLKATA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20005 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77407&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 10(38): The fact that "long-term capital gains" on listed shares are exempt from tax does not mean that "long-term capital loss" on such shares is not available for set-off against taxable income. While the gains are exempt, there is no bar against claiming set-off of the loss (J.H. Gotla 156 ITR 323 (SC) distinguished, CBDT Circular No.7/2013 dated 16.07.2013 referred, Raptakos Bret 69 SOT 383 (Mum) followed)
United Investments vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19983 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 10(38)
-
There is hardly any dispute between the parties inter alia about the basic admitted fact of the assessee to have raised the impugned share application money from eleven related parties, the AO having taken recourse to sec. 131/133(6) process in all of their cases, these investors having replied from the other end in support of the correctness of the share application money.
MODERN DALKHOLA FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-2 (1) , JALPAIGURI AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19961 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77322&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee is yet to enjoy a clear legal title on the trust property and therefore, the same could not have been treated as its income as per Sec. 5 of the Act. Even if we accept the Revenue's case in alternative that the trust fund had accrued in assessee's favour in AY 1995-96, we find no justification of the lower authorities' action seeking to re-assess the same.
Mahabodhi Society of India Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19959 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 5
-
The proceedings u/s 263, if any, qua the issue of grant of deduction u/s 80-IC, could have been initiated only with the period of two years from the end of the FY 2010-11 being the year in which the order u/s 154/143(1) was passed.
EAST INDIA UDYOG LTD. VERSUS DCIT CIRCLE – 3 (1), KOLKATA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19958 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77282&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 50C + S. 10(38) Bogus Penny Stocks Capital Gains: (i) Though the 3rd Proviso to s. 50C, which provides a safe harbour of 5%, applies w.e.f. 01.04.2019, it must be interpreted to apply since the insertion of s. 50C (01.04.2003) because it is curative and removes an incongruity and avoids undue hardship to assesseess (ii) LTCG from penny stocks cannot be treated as bogus if the documentation is in order and no fault is found by the AO
Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19880 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 50C
-
A.O has nowhere in the assessment order referred to any material which can prove the complicity of assessee in the alleged accommodation entry operation.
MS. AYUSHI JAIN VERSUS ITO, WARD – 22 (4), KOLKATA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19876 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77023&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Income tax has to be levied on real income and on correct facts. It cannot be levied based on patently incorrect facts or estimates.
Shri Shyam Sundar Rawat Vs Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19869 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
Where loan and advance is given in return to an advantage (interest) then provisions of section 2(22)(e) does not apply.
ACIT, CC-1 (2) , KOLKATA VERSUS CORPORATE ISPAT ALLOYS LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19855 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76966&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As the third proviso relates to 'determination of value of property', and it is only a procedural amendment and not a substantive amendment which is normally prospective in nature.
Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala Vs DCIT, CC-3(4)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19825 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 50C
-
The assessee-company having received money as shareholder on the liquidation of a Company, Sec. 46(2) is clearly applicable and the capital gain or loss is required to be computed by applying the said provision.
Turner Morrison Limited Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19771 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 46(2)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.