ITAT Pune

No Section 40(a)(ia) for Non TDS deduction if Payee paid tax to government

Sai Pushpa Sharada Alliance Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)

Second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is retrospective in nature and in such circumstances, if payee has paid tax to government account then payer cannot be held liable for non-deduction of TDS....

Read More

Section 54F: ITAT allows Date of possession of new house instead of date of sale agreement / registration

Ayushi Patni Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune)

 Since final consideration was paid and the possession of flat was received within a period of one year prior to the date of transfer of capital asset, then the same should be considered as the date of purchase, so as to allow the benefit of deduction under section 54F to assessee....

Read More

Section 234E: Assessee not liable for late filing charges for the period prior to June, 2015

Gangamai College of Engineering Vs ACIT, CPC (TDS) (ITAT Pune)

Assessee could not be held liable for levy of late filing charges under section 234E for the period prior to June, 2015 in the absence of amendment to section 200A, which was brought on Statute from 1-6-2015....

Read More

Section 54B Deduction not claimed in return- Can CIT(A) Allow

ITO Vs Smt. Uma Dnyanoba Bhintade (ITAT Pune)

ITO Vs Smt. Uma Dnyanoba Bhintade (ITAT Pune) The limited issue which arises in the present appeal filed by Revenue is against directions of CIT(A) in allowing the benefit claimed under section 54B of the Act by Assessing Officer, in case the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions laid down in the said section. Admittedly, […]...

Read More

Delay due to improper legal advice should be condoned

DCIT Vs Atlas Copco (India) Limited (ITAT Pune)

DCIT Vs Atlas Copco (India) Limited (ITAT Pune) The assessee has raised a legal ground challenging the validity of assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act’). The moot point is as to whether such a long delay deserves condonation. At this stage, it is relevant to [&hell...

Read More

No penalty for income declared in original return filed within time U/s. 139(1) post Survey

DCIT Vs Dr. Ravindra Babasaheb Kadam (ITAT Pune)

DCIT Vs Dr. Ravindra Babasaheb Kadam (ITAT Pune) The issue in the present ground is with respect to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that additional income of Rs.1.49 crores was offered by the assessee during the course of survey conducted on 12.01.2012. It is also a fact […]...

Read More

Ex-Gratia Payment to prematurely retiring despite absence of Scheme allowable

DCIT Vs Prathamik Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd. (ITAT Pune)

DCIT Vs Prathamik Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd. (ITAT Pune) Brief facts relating to the issue are that the Assessing Officer was of the view that in the absence of any scheme formulated by the assessee bank, the amount paid as ex-gratia to prematurely retiring employees was not to be allowed as deduction. The case of […]...

Read More

Section 54F exemption cannot be denied merely because bills & vouchers were not produced

Shri Govind Gangadhar Sabane Vs The Income Tax Officer (ITAT Pune)

Shri Govind Gangadhar Sabane Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) There is no dispute to the fact that one capital asset was sold and thereafter, new house was constructed. That both the Revenue Authorities in their respective orders have agreed that the Inspector had visited the site and has reported that residential house has been constructed consisting ...

Read More

AO bound to compute total income in conformity with ALP determined by TPO

M/s. Carraro India Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune)

In view of section 92CA(4) as substituted by Finance Act, 2007 w.e.f. 1-6-2007, AO was bound by the order passed by TPO as he is required to compute total income in conformity with the ALP determined by TPO....

Read More

No Deemed Dividend if Assessee was not a Shareholder when amount been advanced

ACIT Vs M/s. Bhaawani Shankar Ginning Factory (ITAT Pune)

ACIT Vs M/s. Bhaawani Shankar Ginning Factory (ITAT Pune)  The issue in the present ground is with respect to addition u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that assessee had received loan from Mahesh Ginning Pvt. Ltd., in which both the partners of the assessee also held 18.19% shares each. We find […]...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (4,355)
Company Law (5,149)
Custom Duty (7,478)
DGFT (4,044)
Excise Duty (4,275)
Fema / RBI (3,891)
Finance (4,048)
Income Tax (31,161)
SEBI (3,237)
Service Tax (3,478)