Shrikrishna Khandsari Sugar Mills Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) The only issue raised in this appeal is against the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.4,19,970/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) in respect of agricultural expenses. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee has been engaged in manufacturing and trading in Khandsari sugar […]
Rental income received from unsold portion of property constructed by a real estate developer, is assessable as ‘Income from house property’
Mohammad Bhai Esufali & Sons Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) The only dispute is about wastage/evaporation claimed by the assessee at 1.23%/0.89%. These figures have emerged from the tabulation made in the impugned order on page 4, where the assessee gave a comparative analysis showing that the wastage/shortage in the immediately preceding year was higher at […]
Vasanthan Mukundan Peedikakkandy Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune) At the outset, we note that this appeal was filed with a delay of 931 days before the CIT(A). An affidavit filed explaining the said delay which is reproduced by the CIT(A) in impugned order at page Nos.11 to 13. On perusal of the same, we note that […]
ITAT held that transaction of receipt of donation is a sham, a make believe story, a device adopted by appellant society to bring on record undisclosed income
Held that as the assessee is in windmill’s power generation business, additional depreciation available for windmill u/s 32(1)(iia).
Reopening reasons have to be read on standalone basis without any scope of addition, deletion or substitution therein even if supportive material emerges at a later stage.
The new auditor, as per the established procedure, sought a no objection from the earlier auditor, who raised certain objections. Those issues were resolved later on, which led to the delay in the audit of the accounts of the assessee.
Explore the ITAT Pune ruling in Karandikar Enterprises vs. ACIT case. Victory for the assessee on the treatment of entertainment tax subsidy as a capital receipt, with detailed analysis.
Assessee did not submitted necessary details before AO. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO on this score without calling for the remand report. Tribunal set-aside the impugned order.
