Papers seized fro the premises of Group Company could not be relied upon for making additions in the hands of the assessee whose names appeared in the said documents.
ACIT Vs Shri Akshay Rajesh Samdariya (ITAT Pune) The solitary issue raised in the appeal by the Revenue and Cross objections by the assessee is against addition deleted/confirmed on account of bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer in re-assessment proceedings made addition of Rs. 2,78,55,984/- as bogus purchases purportedly made by the assessee. In first appeal […]
Where payments in the nature of royalty/fee for technical services (FTS) were made to non -residents, an order u/s. 201 passed after one year from the end of the financial year in which the proceedings were initiated was void ab initio and liable to be quashed.
On going through the language of the Explanation 10, it is manifest that it is attracted only when the object of the Scheme is to subsidize the cost of an asset and not otherwise. If the object of the Scheme is to accelerate the industrial development of the State, then the case is not caught within the mandate of the Explanation 10.
ITO Vs S. M. Batha Education Trust (ITAT Pune) In the absence of pending return of income, the provisions of section 143(2) of the Act is clear that notice can be issued only when a valid return is pending for assessment. Reassessment proceedings is invalid if notice U/sec.143(2) is issued prior to filing of return […]
M/s. P.R. Associates Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune) We find that the assessee specifically submitted before the AO during the course of penalty proceedings, which fact has also been captured in the penalty order, that its business was inoperative for the last 7 years and it had already borrowed loans from Shree Suvarna Sahakari Bank Ltd. […]
Web hosting charges are not in the nature of royalty and accordingly not covered within the scope of Explanation 2 (iva) of section 9(1)(vi)
Shri Sohanlal Mohanlal Bhandari Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune) Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is seen from pages 5 and 6 of the impugned order that the assessee acquired land in two parts for construction of a new residential house, viz, the first part of the plot purchased on 11.10.2010 and the […]
As intention of assessee to continue the business was clear, business expenditure including, depreciation as claimed by the assessee could not be disallowed due to temporary restrictions.
rofessional fee paid to the trustees, who were qualified doctors were allowable as deduction as it could not be held to be for the direct or indirect benefit of trustees.
