Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (6) TMI 1128 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

2016 (6) TMI 1128 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT - TMI - Entitlement to deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the employees’ contribution to the provident fund - whether 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 ? - Held that:- The first question is already covered by a judgemen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, a point was taken that the CIT had permitted the assessee to adduce new evidence, that too, without giving an opportunity of rebuttal to the revenue, which is why there was violation of Rule 46A and ultimately at the time of hearing of the appeal, the learned Tribunal came to the finding that the deduction was allowed by the CIT (Appeal) on evidence. Mr. Dutta has not disputed that there was evidence on record. Therefore, proper course shall be to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer. He .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

0 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B Bench, Kolkata in ITA 1620/Kol/2008 and ITA 1721 (Kol)/2008 both pertaining to the assessment year 2004-05. What had happened was that the earlier appeal was an appeal by the assessee and the subsequent appeal was an appeal by the revenue. Both the appeals were disposed of by the impugned judgement and order. The assessee has once again come up in appeal. At the time of admission of the appeal, three questions were formulated, of which two .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

43B by taking a view which is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in (2009) 319 ITR 306. 3. Whether the learned Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in reversing the finding of the CIT(Appeals) on the question of transaction cost on capital gain on sale of property which is a perverse finding of fact without any material or evidence. Both Mr.Dutta, learned advocate for the revenue and Mr. Bajoria, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version