ITAT Pune

HUF is eligible for Exemption under section 54B only w.e.f. 1-4-2013

Ashok Kisan Bahirat (HUF) & Anr Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)

If intention of Parliament was to include HUF prior to the said date then the amendment would have been carried out in respect of section 54B as well along with section 54. Therefore, amended provisions of section 54B were not applicable retrospectively and assessee-HUF was not entitled to exemption for the year under consideration....

Read More

Order U/s. 201(1) cannot be passed after expiry of limitation period

Vodafone Cellular Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune)

Vodafone Cellular recent appeal: No order under section 201(1) of the Act shall be passed after expiry of the limitation period treating assessee-in-default for non-deduction of tax at source...

Read More

Nature of Interest awarded U/s. 28 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Dnyanoba Shajirao Jadhav Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)

Dnyanoba Shajirao Jadhav Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) Interest awarded u/s. 23(1A) and 23(2) r.w.s. 28 of the L.A. Act is in the nature of solitium and an integral part of compensation. It is an admitted position that the receipt of compensation awarded under L.A. Act is a capital receipt. Whereas, interest awarded u/s. 34 of the […]...

Read More

Addition to income on account of reversal of provision for royalty deleted in Skoda Auto case

DCIT Vs. M/s. Skoda Auto A.S. (ITAT Pune)

Advocate Akhilesh Kumar Sah DCIT Vs. M/s. Skoda Auto A.S. (ITAT Pune) In this case, one of the ground raised by Revenue was whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Dispute Resolution Panel was right in directing AO to delete proposed addition on account of reversal of provision for Royalty of Rs.1,39,18,474/-, […]...

Read More

It is not for the TPO to decide best business strategy for assessee

M/s.Eaton Fluid Power Limited Vs The Asst. (ITAT Pune)

It is not for the TPO to decide the best business strategy for the assessee. The Hon’ble High Court also held that This whimsical fixation by the TPO amounts to an arbitrary and unbridled exercise of power. ...

Read More

Penalty proceedings liable to be quashed for Inconsistency in recording of satisfaction and levy of penalty

Ashok Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. Asst. CIT (ITAT Pune)

Where specific charge for the levy of penalty was not mentioned in the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) and there was vagueness in the recording of satisfaction, the penalty proceedings were liable to be quashed....

Read More

Penalty U/s. 271AAA lieviable if Conditions precedent not satisfied

Asst. CIT Vs. Shailesh Gopal Mhaske (ITAT Pune)

Where the assessee failed to specify manner in which undisclosed income was derived and also failed to deposit due taxes then the assessee failed to satisfy the conditions specified under section 271AAA(2) and hence, immunity from penalty was not available to assessee....

Read More

Mere furnishing of confirmations & PAN not sufficient to prove creditworthiness of creditors

Mayuri Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT pune)

Mayuri Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT pune) Mere furnishing of confirmations and PAN are not sufficient to prove the creditworthiness of the creditors. The assessee has to prove financial capacity of the creditors. The assessee was required to furnish evidence that would show financial worth of the creditors, such as bank statements...

Read More

Sec 10A / 10B: Bar in section 92CA(4) not applies to suo motu TP adjustments

Approva Systems Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune)

Approva Systems Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune) Now, coming to the second claim of deduction under section 10B/10A of the Act on TP adjustment of Rs 64,07,399/-. The assessee on its own motion had offered adjustment on account of transfer pricing provision to the extent of Rs 64,07,399/-. The computation of income is placed […]...

Read More

Assessee entitled to claim additional depreciation on windmill

Giriraj Enterprises Vs. Dy. CIT (ITAT Pune)

Process of generation of electricity is akin to manufacture or production of an article or ‘thing’, therefore, assessee was entitled to claim additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) on windmill even prior to amendment of section 32(1)(iia) by Finance Act, 2012 as said amendment is only clarificatory in nature....

Read More
Page 1 of 1512345...10...Last »

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (3,724)
Company Law (3,807)
Custom Duty (6,921)
DGFT (3,658)
Excise Duty (4,127)
Fema / RBI (3,449)
Finance (3,656)
Income Tax (27,216)
SEBI (2,882)
Service Tax (3,352)