Lokmangal Nagri Sahakari Path Sanstha Maryadit Vs PCIT (ITAT Pune) In the present case, we find that admittedly the interest income was earned from the cooperative banks, the cooperative bank is also a specie of cooperative society, therefore, the interest income earned by the cooperative society from the cooperative banks qualifies for deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(d) […]
Shri Arunoday Multi State Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Pune) The issue in the present appeal relates to the validity of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 by the ld. PCIT. The Parliament had conferred the power of revision on the Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 263 of the Act in case the assessment […]
CIT(A) was justified in sustaining the adjustment u/s 143(1)(a) by means of disallowance made in these cases for late deposit of employees’ share to the relevant funds beyond the date prescribed under the respective Acts.
ITAT Pune denied exemption of capital gain under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act by applying principle of fraud as the transaction of purchase and sale of shares were construed with the intention to bring undisclosed income into books of accounts.
Mahesh Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune) ITAT held that a co-operative bank/ assessee has no liability to deduct TDS on interest payments made to members. We thus delete the impugned section 194A r.w.s. 40 (a)(ia) disallowance of Rs. 2,00,095/- in very terms therefore. FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE 1. […]
Sikandar And Company Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) AO has to power to reopen, provided there is tangible material to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from other assessment. Further, there must be reasons recorded showing live link with the formation of the belief that there is escapement of income from assessment. […]
Admittedly, the AO deployed Inspector to verify whether there is any construction/residential house constructed by the assessee. The Inspector submitted report on 19-12-2016 stating that no construction or residential house is existing at House No. 4, Ward No. 12, Ichalkaranji which clearly establishes the assessee could not construct a house within three years from the date of sale of its assets on 17-03-2011 till 19-12-2016. Therefore, the assessee made construction within three years and in my opinion, the AO rightly denied deduction u/s. 54F of the Act.
Ruikar Trust Vs ACIT (CPC) (ITAT Pune) Brief facts relating to the case are that the assessee is a charitable trust. The assessee claimed exemption u/s. 11 of the Act in the return of income. The CPC, Bangalore denied the said exemption for non-filing of Form 10 within time. Having aggrieved, the assessee challenged the […]
It is to be presumed that the assessee made investments from its own funds but not from borrowed funds. If that is the case the disallowance under interest is not warranted. Therefore, disallowance under Rule 8D(ii) to an extent of Rs. 1,78,490/- is not maintainable.
ITAT Pune held that with regard to first proviso to section 43CA of the Income tax Act effect of the tolerance margin of 10% is to be given retrospective effect i.e. made applicable even for the prior assessment years
