ITAT Pune held that incentives receivable as per the Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme 2010 is capital receipt in nature and therefore not taxable.
ITAT Pune held that bonafide belief that as there is no sales there is no need of tax audit is not acceptable as Gross receipt of the assessee is more than INR 1 Crore. Accordingly, penalty u/s 271B imposable for default in not getting books audited.
Bharat Keshavlal Shah Vs PCIT (ITAT Pune) Lastly comes the issue of section 56(2)(vii) made applicable in assessee’s case on account of alleged difference between stamp valuation and actual purchase consideration qua the sale deed executed in the relevant previous year. A perusal of the said sale deed dated 31.12.2013, and more particularly, the schedule […]
The AO had made out a case that if the assessee company had paid dividend instead of remuneration to directors, such payment would have been fetched more tax. In our considered opinion, there is no question of changing the character of transaction from payment of salary to the possible payment of dividend, resulting into potential higher inflow of tax.
There is no provision under head Profits and Gains from business or profession which deems rental income from unsold flats held as stock as Business income.
DCIT Vs Barclays Global Service Centre Private Limited (ITAT Pune) The issue that arises for our consideration is whether or not an assessment order passed in the name of amalgamating company i.e. non-existing company, is valid in the eyes of law. There is no dispute about the fact that the factum of amalgamation was put […]
When assessee entertained bona-fide belief that its account were not subject to audit u/s 44AB, it would certainly constitute reasonable cause for not obtaining the audit report and, therefore, question of imposing of penalty u/s 271B does not arise.
Shri Narendra Shantikumar Firodia Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) Phraseology in section 50C(1) of the Act only covers exclusively land or building or both and does not refer to any right in land or building. Thus, the expression land or building in its coverage is quite distinct from the expression any right in land or building. […]
HUF is owner of the said agricultural land though it is registered in the name of the coparcener, as the HUF is enjoying all the benefits of the said agricultural land.
Mansukh Timbadia Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune) In this case scrutiny of entries of seized loose papers reveals that the transactions noted thereon were not genuine and have no evidentiary value for the reason no clear details concerning the AY consideration are ascertainable as rightly pointed by the ld. AR as it establishes estimations only. This […]
