TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e due date but before the filing of the return under section 139(1) in view of the proviso to Section 43B ? - Held that:- The first question is already covered by a judgement of this court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Kolkata vs. M/s. Vijay Shree Limited [2011 (9) TMI 30 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] against the revenue. Transaction cost on capital gain on sale of property - He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the basis of evidence which may have been adduced and may be adduced as regards the transaction cost and shall decide the issue afresh in accordance with law - ITA No. 110 0F 2011 - - - Dated:- 14-6-2016 - GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA AND ASHA ARORA JJ. For Appellant/Petitioner : Mr.R.N.Bajoria, Sr.Advocate Mrs. Nilanjana Banerjee (Pal),Advocate For Respondent : Mr. S. N.Dutta, Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... antial error of law in holding that the appellant was not entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the employees contribution to the provident fund as the said amount had not been paid within the due date but before the filing of the return under section 139(1) in view of the proviso to Section 43B by taking a view which is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revenue. In so far as the question no.3 is concerned, it appears that the CIT (Appeal) was of the opinion that the Assessing Officer had ignored evidence on record in disallowing the transaction cost to the assessee. The CIT(Appeal) based on the evidence allowed the deduction. In an appeal preferred by the revenue against that order , a point was taken that the CIT had permitted the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
