Pravin Chatarbhuj Bajaj Vs Addl. CIT (TDS) (ITAT Pune) The case of the assessee before us is that the delay in submission of e-TDS return was because of strict requirement of e-filing of the statement and filing of such e-TDS return in this year PAN of person on whose behalf tax is collected were required […]
Deduction under section 54F was in respect of capital gain arising in the hands of wife of assessee, should have been claimed in the return of income filed by the wife of assessee, therefore, claim of assessee under section 54F was liable to be rejected.
Sharp Designers and Engineers India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Khinvasara Investments Pvt. Ltd.) Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune) AO had not brought any comparables from market to make out that the case that impugned payment was excessive or unreasonable within the meaning of section 40A(2)(b) and based his conclusion merely on low profitability of recipient firm was […]
Assessee’s case with both original and revised returns filed in time was placed in a better position, therefore, deduction under section 80-IA was allowable, despite the same was claimed through filing of revised return.
In the present case, a perusal of reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings clearly show that they are against the sprit of provisions of section 147 of the Act. The AO has issued notice under section 148 of the Act on the directions of JCIT and CIT. The learned Members of the ITAT held that in our considered opinion the notice issued under section 148 of the Act was bad in law and the subsequent proceedings arising there from are vitiated.
Mayuri Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT pune) Mere furnishing of confirmations and PAN are not sufficient to prove the creditworthiness of the creditors. The assessee has to prove financial capacity of the creditors. The assessee was required to furnish evidence that would show financial worth of the creditors, such as bank statements, to remove […]
After the slump price has been attributed first to the value of tangible assets, then the balance is to be attributed to intangible assets and once the same is done and whether it is under the umbrella of know-how, trademarks, patents or goodwill, it makes no difference since all these are covered under the umbrella of intangible assets, which are eligible for claim of depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act.
Assessee was engaged in the business of plant floriculture and tissue culture, and claimed exemption of income under section 10(1) for being agricultural income, AO was not justified in disallowing exemption on the ground that basic operation were done in greenhouse since involvement of greenhouse would not change the nature of operations.
The issue is with respect to levy of penalty under section 271B of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that assessee is engaged in the business of Advertising Agency and during the year under consideration the commission earned from the Advertising Agency was not in excess of the limits prescribed under section 44AB for the purpose of getting the books audited.
TDS requirement under section 194C is not applicable to transactions of purchase of goods, therefore, no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) could be made.
