Ajay Engineering and Agricultural Equipment Company Vs PCIT (ITAT Pune) ITAT Pune held that AO did not specifically discuss the five issues in the assessment order, however, assessment order does not satisfy the second condition of being prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Simply non-discussion of an issue in assessment order does not render […]
ITAT Pune held that expenditure incurred on repairs and renovation of the asset is revenue expenditure as no new asset has been created.
ITAT Pune held that non-compliance with communication under Section 143(1)(A) of Income Tax Act 1961 due to IT-Website technical glitches was unintentional and beyond the control of appellant. Accordingly, exemption in the evince of Form No 10B duly available.
Lions Nab Community Eyecare Centre Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) Appellant filed the return of income in Form No.5. However, no documents were filed along with the return of income justifying the claim for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. It is only after receipt of intimation, the appellant took a plea that its income was […]
Galaxy Construction and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) The issue in the present appeal relates to levy of penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer in respect of addition made under the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. It is an […]
ITAT Pune held that initiation of revisionary proceeding under section 263 of the Income Tax Act on a fishing and roving enquiry in the matter without bringing on record any material or evidence is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Pune held that the statutory provisions of interest on refund (section 244A of the Act) cannot be altered by issue of circular by CBDT to the extent they are beneficial to the taxpayer.
If refund arises because of self-assessment tax, which falls in realm of expression `any other case’, the same gets covered within purview section 244A(1)(b), thereby entitling assessee to interest thereon.
Insurance policy was not taken by company under key man insurance & Merely, amount was paid by it so premium not allowed as business deduction
No prejudice was caused to the Assessing Officer on account of non-complying with the notice u/s 142(1) issued on 05.09.2019 and inaction of the Assessing Officer on the adjournment petition moved by the assessee would also enable the appellant to believe that the time to comply with the extension of time as prayed was granted.
