ITAT Pune held that denial of exemption under section 10(23C)(v) of the Income Tax Act for belated filing of Form No. 10BB not justified as audit report in Form No. 10BB was submitted before completion of assessment proceedings. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Pune directed appellant to prove genuineness of activities; details of donations received and file audited financial statements for getting approval for regular registration u/s.12A r.w.s.12AB of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, matter remitted back.
ITAT Pune held that rectification order under section 154 of the Income Tax Act passed without providing an opportunity of being heard is bad-in-law and deserved to be set aside. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
ITAT Pune quashes Section 271(1)(c) penalty on Intervalve Poonawalla for leave encashment disallowance, citing full disclosure and judicial precedents.
The ITAT Pune has set aside an income tax addition of Rs. 41 Lakh in demonetized notes for Dashrath Kisanrao, remanding the case to the AO for fresh verification of bank deposit certificates.
ITAT Pune remands Snehbandh Foundation’s 12AB/80G registration denial, citing lack of proper hearing on trustee loans and directing reconsideration in light of judicial precedent.
Assessee then filed an appeal before Tribunal. It was held that assessee had included net gain of ₹17.02 crore from foreign currency transactions and translations in its operating income, but DRP had rejected the claim.
ITAT Pune allows Mahanagar Constructions’ appeal, ruling that notional rental income from unsold flats held as stock in trade cannot be taxed as ‘Income from House Property’ for AY 2014-15, citing judicial precedents.
Pune ITAT rules on Cosmopolis Construction appeals, holding that notional rent on unsold stock-in-trade is business income, not ‘Income from House Property’.
In a significant ruling for taxpayers facing automated adjustments, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Pune Bench has directed the deletion of a disallowance made by the Central Processing Centre (CPC) under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The tribunal held that where a subsequent detailed scrutiny assessment by the Assessing Officer (AO) has considered and accepted the taxpayer’s contentions on the same issue, that decision takes precedence.
