Dilip B. Mundada Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) Jurisdictional High Court and other Hon’ble High Courts and ITAT Pune have held that for availing the benefit of deduction u/s 54F the new asset shall be purchased in the name of the assessee. Applying the said proposition of law to the present case, we hold that the […]
Held that receipt of IT support service doesnt become FTS as assessee did not make available any technical knowhow, experience or skill to its customers. The same is not chargeable to tax
Ravindra Joma Bhagat Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) ITAT noted that the delay of 2172 days are abnormal and the assessee could not explain reasons which really prevented the assessee in filing appeal in time before the ITAT except stating that due to advice of his Chartered Accountant/Consultant, in our opinion is not reasonable cause which […]
Vijay Vasantrao Mahadik Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Pune) The assessee appears to have opened the foregoing bank account in the name of his erstwhile minor son Mr. Virendra Mahadik long back. He had also furnished his PAN number at the time of his minor son’s bank account opening. Mr. Jasnani vehemently argued that the learned […]
Held that the assessee has secured the license right to use the know-how for the period of the agreement and the royalty expenditure in this regard is therefore revenue in nature.
whether the CIT(A) justified in confirming the addition of Rs.1,26,80,413/- on account of long term capital gain in the hands of the assessee instead of Jayantilal Oswal in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Ravindra Champalal Khinvasara Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) It is an admitted position that the assessee is otherwise eligible for deduction u/s.80IB(10) in respect of one of its projects, namely, ‘Khinvasara Fort’. The AO did not dispute the otherwise allowability of deduction of income from the ‘Khinvasara Fort’ project, but observed that the assessee could not […]
For issuing notice u/s 158BC, there has to be a search in the case of ‘any person’, then the Assessing officer shall serve a notice to ‘such person’. It means notice u/s 158BC can be issued to only such person who has been searched u/s 132 of the Act.
DCIT Vs Envair Electrodyne Ltd. (ITAT Pune) ITAT find no merit in the Revenue’s argument in principle that section 50C gets attracted even in case of transfer of leasehold rights which does not come within the nature and ambit of specified asset(s) of ‘land or building or both’ in the statutory provision. We thus, conclude […]
Navin Sirahmal Mukim Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) It is observed that the assessee allegedly purchased diamonds through the Hawala purchase bills and thereafter utilized the same in the manufacture of the jewellery. In such a situation, the entire amount of purchase bills does not requires addition but only the profit element because the diamonds must […]
