In the present case, the assessee trust has made ample efforts for procuring information from the Department regarding duplicate copy of registration certificate. The Department was not able to provide any copy of the registration certificate.
Gulab Badgujar (HUF) Vs CIT (Central) (ITAT Pune) The question which arises is the exercise of revisionary jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Act against the order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, wherein the assessment proceedings were re-opened on specific reasons recorded for re-opening. We […]
M/s. Kolte Patil Developers Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) The issue in the present case is with respect to addition under the head ‘income from house property’ on the 32 unsold flats/shops by the assessee. It is an undisputed fact that assessee is in the business of Civil Engineers, Builders and Developers and had in […]
Second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is retrospective in nature and in such circumstances, if payee has paid tax to government account then payer cannot be held liable for non-deduction of TDS.
M/s. Angre Port (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) Wharfage charges are charged from the assessee and in such case, we hold that there is no use of land but even if it was held that there is any use of land, then the same was incidental but such payments could not be treated as […]
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 […]
