Law is well settled that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee is on him.
Gourishankar Girdharilal Lohiya (HUF) Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune) This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 arises against the CIT(A)-1 Aurangabad’s order dated 17.02.2020 passed in case no.ABD/CIT(A)-1/199/2011-12 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. I straightway advert to the assessee’s […]
Software maintenance fees, consulting charges and training fees which are incidental to software license fee, assumes same character as that of software license fee. We held that the consideration received towards software license fee cannot be termed as Royalty.
Shivsamarth Group Vs PCIT (ITAT Pune) Admittedly, in the present case, the order which is sought to be revised is the order dropping the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. On carefully going through the material on record, it would be clear that the original reassessment proceedings were initiated with view to tax the […]
Asha Bhausaheb Thube Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) Section 54F of the Act requires assessee to purchase new residential house within a period of Two years after the date of Sale or construct within a period of Three years. In this case, it is a fact that assessee has neither purchased nor constructed a residential house […]
Provision for obsolete stock be allowed as deduction subject to satisfying himself that valuation is done based on principle that at cost or market price or net realizable value, whichever is less.
The case of the assessee is that the payments were covered under clause (k) of Rule 6DD, which provides that no disallowance will be made where the payment is made by any person to his agent who is required to make payment in cash for goods or services on behalf of such persons.
Mismatch in income returned in ITR and FORM 26AS is not covered within purview of Explanation (a) to section 139(9) (Defective Return)
Difference between MRP & price sold to Stockists, by no stretch of imagination, can be considered as commission or brokerage paid by assessee to its Stockists to attract section 194H TDS.
ITAT held that interest expenditure incurred on loans taken for investment in acquiring controlled interest in a Company which was in the same line of business as that of the Respondent would be allowable expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act.
