Sponsored
    Follow Us:

ITAT Pune

No Penalty could be levied u/s 271(1)(c) if only advance is received and no actual sale is made

August 27, 2015 1769 Views 0 comment Print

Hon’ble Tribunal held that whenever the consideration is received in advance for the particular sale, The money will be taxed in the year in which the sale is made and not in the assessment year in which the advances are received.

Lesser of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation shall be reduced from net profit in computation of book profit- S. 115JB

August 14, 2015 13789 Views 0 comment Print

In the case of M/s. Kailash Vahan Udyog Ltd. Vs. DCIT Pune Bench of ITAT have held that according to the provisions of section 115JB Explanation 1 Clause (iii) while computing book profit, the amount of loss brought forward (before depreciation) or unabsorbed depreciation

Sec. 271AAA-No penalty where demand paid before penalty order

August 12, 2015 1789 Views 0 comment Print

It was held that wherein entire tax and interest has been duly paid well within the time limit for payment of notice of demand under section 156 and well before the penalty proceedings were concluded, the assessee could not be denied the immunity under section 271AAA (2) only because entire tax, along with interest, was not paid before filing of income tax return or, for that purpose, before concluding the assessment proceedings.

WIP Valuation on receipt basis forbidden in mercantile accounting

July 31, 2015 1279 Views 0 comment Print

ITAT Pune held in the case The ACIT vs. M/s. Ambarwadikar & Co., Engineers & Contractors that It is clear that the bill raised by the assessee has been accepted by the department and for whatever reason some amount was not paid during F.Y. 2001-02 but the fact remains that there is no such dispute as claimed by the assessee.

Exemption u/s 10 (23C)(iiiab) cannot be denied merely on the basis of contradictory statements of few donors

July 21, 2015 9053 Views 0 comment Print

Deccan Education Society Vs. Addl. CIT (ITAT Pune) Hon’ble ITAT observed that Merely because some of the donors stated that they have given the donation for admission will not disentitle the society from getting exemption which exists solely for educational purposes

Orders passed U/s. 201(1)/201(1A) should comply by time limit prescribed under proviso to section 201(3)

June 30, 2015 2195 Views 0 comment Print

Appeals filed by the assessee were withdrawn. The Revenue filed the appeal. Facts of the case were that the assessee company was engaged in the business of running a mall. A TDS survey was conducted on 15-11-2012 during which it was observed that the assessee company had deducted tax on professional fees u/s.194J at lower rate than as required by the section.

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in search assessment is tenable only if some incriminating material found during search

June 29, 2015 1670 Views 0 comment Print

Assessee is not liable to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act since the same was not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. The addition was based on the basis of loan creditors found from the balance sheet already filed prior to the search along with the original return of income.

Peak credit theory for addition to income is applicable when deposit in bank account is out of cash withdrawals

June 17, 2015 9288 Views 0 comment Print

Peak credit theory will be applicable only when there are deposits in cash and withdrawals in cash. In the instant case when the deposits are made in cash and most of the withdrawals are by way of clearing and not cash withdrawn, therefore, the theory of peak credit is not fully applicable to the facts of this case.

Expense/Liability not allowable based on mere debit note, unless genuineness is established

June 17, 2015 1041 Views 0 comment Print

Liability need not to always be a contractual one. On the basis of understanding between the two parties, both sides have passed necessary accounting entries. It was a genuine transaction. Since the assessee was unable to complete the SEZ it transferred the land to the sister concern IGICPL.

Penalty u/s 271(1)(C) can’t be levied in succeeding year if on similar/ identical disallowance, no penalty was levied in preceding year

June 12, 2015 1849 Views 0 comment Print

In the case of Asst Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dhariwal Industries Ltd, Hon’ble ITAT has held that once issue on which penalty u/s 271 (1)(C)levied involves substantial question of law, then, no penalty is leviable.

Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031