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.
ITAT Pune rules in favor of Sanjay Dattatraya Dapodikar. Section 56(2)(vii)(b) not applicable in 2015, stamp value on 2008 agreement considered.
ITAT Pune held that AO had not brought any material indicating the existence of an arrangement between the assessee company and its foreign AE, as a result of which more profits than ordinarily have been produced to the assessee company. Hence, provisions of section 10B(7) r.w.s. 80IA have no application.
AO had wrong assumption of facts and by applying incorrect law without due application of mind allowed claim of interest paid on borrowed capital u/s. 24(b). Therefore, in our opinion, PCIT correctly exercised its jurisdiction
DCIT Vs Mahalaxmi Realtors (ITAT Pune) ITAT held that findings in the assessment proceedings cannot be regarded as conclusive for the purpose of the penalty proceedings. It is also well settled that the criteria and yardstick for the purpose of imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) are different than those applied for making or confirming the addition. […]
