Rajendra Bastimal Chordiya Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) The issue in the present ground is with respect to the denial of claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act for the reason that the land was not cultivable. We find that the reason for denying the claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act was for […]
When a notice under section 148 is issued, the proper course of action for the assessee is to file return and if he so desires, to seek reasons for issuing notices and AO is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time. On receipt of reasons, the assessee is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the AO is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order.
ITO Vs Mukesh Champaklal Shah (ITAT Pune) The definition of capital asset excludes agricultural land and certain criteria have been placed in this statue to qualify the land as agricultural land. The facts on records demonstrate that both the parties have accepted the land to be an agricultural land. The 7/12 extracts clearly demonstrates the […]
DCIT Vs Sovereign Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Pune) A bare perusal of reasons for reopening would show that the Assessing Officer has erred in invoking the provisions of section 148 r.w.s. 147 after the expiry of four years to cover up his own follies. It is not the case of Revenue that the assessee has […]
Chandu Laxman Chavan Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) While levying penalty, the Assessing Officer invoked only the charge of “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income”. It is evident that while recording satisfaction the Assessing Officer was not clear in his mind as to which charge u/s. 271(1) (c) is to be invoked for initiating penalty. The ambiguity […]
Since no effort was made by AO to serve another notice u/s. 143(2) before the deadline after returning from postal authorities the original notice u/s 143(2) thus, the jurisdictional condition of `service’ of notice u/s. 143(2) and not its `issue’ was not satisfied and accordingly, assessment order passed in absence of a valid jurisdiction was quashed.
M/s. Kolte Patil I-Ven Townships Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune) The issue in the present case is with respect to addition under the head ‘income from house property’ on the 32 unsold flats/shops by the assessee. It is an undisputed fact that assessee is in the business of Civil Engineers, Builders and Developers and had in […]
In the absence of any permission received from Pr. CIT or the CIT, there was no merit in the order of AO in making addition on an issue which was not the basis for selection of case under CASS.
Ms. Sandvik Tooling Sverige AB Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) The assessee is non-resident and was providing software services to Sandvik Asia Ltd. and also was providing IT support services to the said concern. The question which arises in the present appeal is whether the consideration received by assessee from the payer i.e. Sandvik Asia Pvt. […]
Pioneer Distilleries Limited Vs Pr. CIT (ITAT Pune) In the present set of facts where the Commissioner himself has given a finding that the re-assessment proceedings have not been correctly carried out against the assessee and the Assessing Officer has failed to fulfill his obligation, then under such circumstances where, he has also held that […]
