Latish Chandar Samnani Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) The issue in the present case is with respect to disallowance of freight for expenses. The Assessing Officer had disallowed the expenses at 20% on adhoc basis which was restricted to 10% by CIT(A). Before us, it is assessee’s submissions that if the addition is restricted to 5% […]
Assessee had not disputed that he is common shareholder in both companies, however, contended that provisions of section 2(22)(e) have no application, inasmuch as, loan advanced was in ordinary course of its business.
Shilpa Vitthal Jadhav Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) AO considered sale of plot as per development agreement of Rs.50,00,000/- as the share of assessee but, I find no reference whatsoever regarding the exact share of assessee pointing out in the said development agreement. The contention of ld. AR is that the AO considered the said amount […]
ACIT Vs Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Pune) In the line of business of assessee i.e. manufacture and sale of passenger cars, the automobiles which were manufactured were governed by Central Motor Vehicles Act (CMV Act) and Central Motor Vehicle Rules (CMV Rules). Under the said regulations, it is mandatory to seek approval from the […]
Sagar Uttam Murhe Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) Case law (2020) 120 com 187 CIT vs. Padmavati (Mad) (HC) holds that such an assessment could not exceed the scope of the prescribed ‘limited‘ scrutiny except as per the due process of law. This is indeed coupled with various coordinate benches decisions reiterating the very legal proposition. […]
DCIT Vs Ferrero India Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Pune) The main contention that was advanced by the assessee in this case before the Tribunal was that the existence of international transaction cannot be inferred by the T.P.O in the absence of any actual transaction and the presumption by the lower authorities that the benefit had endured […]
Shri Dilip Manichand Nahar Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) ITAT held that The reason explained by the assessee in both the notarized affidavits that the appeal was not filed on the advice of his Consultant does not constitute a sufficient cause to condone the delay of 807 days, thus the reasons stated in both the notarized […]
Impugned Section 271(1)(c) Penalty proceedings imposed by AO is not maintainable against assessee’s legal heir under section 159 of Act
Portfolio Management Services earning should be assessed as ‘Capital gains’ and not as ‘Profit and gains of business or profession’.
ITAT Held that if application is moved well in time for seeking completion certificate from the Municipal Corporation and delay in issuance of completion certificate is not attributable to the assessee. Then, date of application should be considered for claiming deduction u/s 80IB
