Assessee had declared additional incomes when AO confronted with details of Form No. 26AS , it could not be said that declaration of income by assessee was voluntary, therefore, levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) on account of concealment was justified, especially in view of the fact that similar income had been earned and duly offered to tax during earlier years also.
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.
Assessee was only using services provided by Amazon and was not concerned with the rights in technology. The fees paid by assessee was for use of technology and cannot be said to be for use of royalty,
Ekdanta Land Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) It is a settled issue that the seized papers seized from the premises of Jai Corp Group and others cannot be relied upon for making additions in the hands of the land aggregators whose names appeared in the said documents. It is not the case of the […]
Klaus Multiparking System Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune) As per bills raised by ‘S’ assessee had merely reimbursed octroi charges in addition to payment of transportation charges to said ‘S’. It was not requirement of law to deduct tax at source out of reimbursement of expenses, therefore, assessee could not be held to be […]
Majid Khan Nisar Khan Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) Revenue records clearly show that there was cultivation on the land. In so far as determination of two years period is concerned, the period of two is to be determined from date of sale and not the immediately two preceding financial years. The date of sale of […]
Eaton Industrial Systems (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) Where assessee-company paid sales commission foreign of agents for securing export orders from the buyers abroad the services were not rendered by such foreign agents in India, and no part of the said income had arisen in India, therefore, TDS was not required to be deductible […]
ITO (Exemptions) Vs Serum Institute of India Research Foundation (ITAT Pune) Corpus donations received by the Trusts, which is not registered u/s.12A/12AA of the Act, are not taxable as they assume the nature of ‘Capital receipt’ the moment the donations are given to the “Corpus of the Trust”. Provisions of section (24)(iia)/12(1)/11(1)(d)/35/56(2) are relevant for […]
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 […]
Adjustment on account of arm’s length price (ALP) of international transaction is restricted only to the extent of international transaction with associated enterprises (AE).
