On going through the language of the Explanation 10, it is manifest that it is attracted only when the object of the Scheme is to subsidize the cost of an asset and not otherwise. If the object of the Scheme is to accelerate the industrial development of the State, then the case is not caught within the mandate of the Explanation 10....

When AO has not brought any material on record to show that the assessee has paid over and above the purchase consideration as claimed and evident from the bank account then, in the absence of any evidence it cannot be held that the assessee has introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus long term capital gain....

Provisions of section 115JB would not be applied to assessee-company where assessee was governed by different Acts and Rules, and was not required to prepare its profit & loss account and balance sheet as per Part II & III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act....

Jefferris India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) When there was no willful concealment and mistake involved human error, penalty under section 271(1)(c ) deleted...

Merely because the sale price is fixed through a negotiated settlement will not take away the proceedings from the Land Acquisition Act when the relevant provision of the Act are invoked....

As regards comparability of Maple e–solutions Ltd., it has now been well settled through various judicial precedents that this company cannot be treated as comparable due to unreliability of its financial data. ...

Sh. Gurdev Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Amritsar) Smt. Harsharan Kaur was 73 years old lady at the relevant time. Therefore, she gave Power of Attorney to the assessee since she could not maintain the property. It was further submitted that within one year from the date of general Power of Attorney, the assessee gave the […]...

M/s. Google India Private Ltd. Vs. JCIT (ITAT Bangalore) After considering the existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience, relative hardship, the earlier orders of the Tribunal and the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of the Assessee on identical issue of grant of stay, the offer to pay […]...

ITO Vs S. M. Batha Education Trust (ITAT Pune) In the absence of pending return of income, the provisions of section 143(2) of the Act is clear that notice can be issued only when a valid return is pending for assessment. Reassessment proceedings is invalid if notice U/sec.143(2) is issued prior to filing of return […]...

ACIT Vs Shri. Sunil Bandacharya Joshi (ITAT Bengaluru) In the present case, the capital asset was sold on 26.02.2011. The capital asset was purchased on 31.03.2011 and before the purchase of the capital asset the amount was deposited in mutual funds. Therefore in the considered opinion of the bench, before the date of filing of […]...