Sinhgad Technical Education Society vs. ACIT (ITAT Pune) -Though section 153C of the Income Tax Act confers jurisdiction if the Assessing Officer is ‘satisfied’ that ‘documents’ seized belong to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A so as to be able to assess that other person, the document must have prima facie incriminating information. The document seized must not only be a ‘speaking one’ but also be prima facie ‘incriminating one’ for attracting section 153C. If the impugned documents merely contain the notings of entries which are already recorded in the books of account or subjected to scrutiny of the AO in the past in regular assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, such document cannot be said to be containing the incriminating information so as to confer jurisdiction u/s 153C.
Dy.CIT, Pune Vs KRA Holding & Trading Pvt Ltd -The view of the assessing officer was consistent with the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Castle Investment (supra). The judgement in Castle Investment insofar as is material held that Section 1150(5) does not in any way restrict the allowability of the claim under section 80M. Under Section 80M what is claimed as a deduction is the dividend received by the company. Dividends declared, distributed or paid are not claimed as deduction under Section 80M though they constitute an outflow of funds from the company. Section 80M imposes a monetary restriction on the amount that may be claimed by way of a deduction by providing that the amount of claim cannot exceed the dividend distributed by the assessee by the due date.
The learned Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate the Development Control Rules of Pune Municipal Corporation and the provisions of The Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act 1949 and has further erred in holding that the authority to issue the completion Certificate to the building vests with the PMC.
Assistant Commissioner of Income tax v. Srj Peety Steels (P) Ltd. (ITAT Pune) – When noting incriminating was found in the course of search relating to any of the assessment years, the assessments for such years could not be disturbed; further, consumption of the electricity for the manufacture of mild steel ingots / billets depends on various factors and the AO did not attempt to establish a direct nexus between production and electricity consumed and therefore no addition was called for.
n the recent past the question of interpretation of newly inserted section 12AA( with effect from 01/04/1997) has always been perennial teaser not only to the trust or institutions but also to the Revenue Department as also faced by the judiciary. To get the answer we have heard both the sides at length, carefully perused the impugned order and also several correspondences filed in the compilation in the light of the case laws cited
7. Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the assessee has contended that the Tribunal in its appellate order has cited two Supreme Court decisions in Royal Hatcheries V. State of Andhra Pradesh. AIR 1994 SC 666 and in M/s.Sil Import USA Vs. M/s.Exim Aides Silk Exporters, AIR 1999 SC 1609, 1612-13, without confronting the assessee at the time of hearing of the appeal before the Tribunal, and therefore
In Asstt. CIT v. Suman Construction (2009) 27 (II) ITCL 329 (Pune ‘A’-Trib) the assessing officer had noticed that the assessee had claimed salary to partners of Rs. 2,20,000. However, in his opinion as per the partnership deed filed along with the return in the past assessment year, there was no specification of this salary payable to the partners.
19. One of the things which is clearly discernable from the facts of this case is that so far as the year before us is concerned, which was incidentally first full year of assessee’s operations, the import content of the raw materials was as high at 98.95%. This is materially different from the import content of the raw material in the cases of the comparables selected by the revenue authorities.
In respect of AY 2002-2003, the assessee claimed by a revised return that the loss suffered in respect of one s. 10A unit was not liable to be set-off against the profits of another s. 10A unit. The AO rejected the claim and the assessee accepted the decision of the AO. On the question whether the assessee was liable for penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) for “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income”, especially in the light
In Dharmendra Textile Processors’ case (supra), Their Lordships have held that that penalty under section 271(1)(c) provides remedy for loss of revenue. A penalty under section 271 (1)(c) involves payment of an additional amount, which is a civil liability to provide for remedy for loss of revenue, while a sentence of imprisonment under section 276 C means loss of individual liberty which does not help revenue in anyway except as serving as a deterrent for the potential defaulters.
