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. […]
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 […]
