ITAT Pune held that leadership training receipts is not chargeable to tax in the light of Article 12(4)(b) of DTAA between India and Portuguese
ITAT Pune held that interest u/s 201(1A) was charged on account of ex-facie delay in depositing the deducted tax within the stipulated due dates and such levy is automatic and without escapement.
BMC Software India P. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) ITAT Pune held that charges of Primary Rate Interface doesn’t require human intervention and hence doesn’t qualify as fees for technical services. Accordingly, TDS not deductible u/s 194J of the Income Tax Act. Facts- Assessee challenged the disallowance of Primary Rate Interface (PRI) line charges paid […]
ITAT held that advance pricing agreement APA is applicable only for specified time span not exceeding five consecutive previous years u/s.92CC(4) r.w. sub section (9A)
Income Tax Return revision right under section 139(5) was denied and not at all available to assessee who has filed belated return under section 139(4).
ITAT Pune held that depreciation on items like stainless steel table, tools, trollies used by scientist or lab technicians in laboratory are used for production of vaccine/ other is allowable at the rate applicable to plant and machinery
ITAT Pune rejected the petition for condonation of delay in filing an appeal as it was found that the appeal was casual, non-serious and non-vigilant in preferring appeal against the impugned orders.
Shivaji Bhimaji Gaikwad Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) No section 40A(3) disallowance for Cash payment for land as part of sale consideration which is incorporated in purchase deed Brief facts relating to the issue on hand are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from land deals and construction. The assessee filed return of […]
ITAT Pune held that addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of Income Tax Act sustainable as assessee failed to prove that the developer had agreed to share its developed area; which in turn, had come to the assessee from his father by way of nomination.
ITAT Pune remands to CIT(A) for discrepancy issue in Sanjay Dayal vs ITO. Assessee’s appeal partly allowed for statistical purposes.
