In the case of Pune District Security Guards Board vs CIT, ITAT Pune held that welfare bodies formed under Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 were eligible for registration under section 12AA even though they charge fee for their services.
In the case of Xerces Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, ITAT Pune held that assessee to prove the identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. Mere furnishing of the particulars is not enough.
The assessee had made payments to non-residents on account of interest, royalties and fees for technical services and the same were subject to withholding under Section 195 of the Act. The assessee in accordance with provisions of Section 90(2) deducted tax on such payments as per the beneficial rates prescribed in the DTAA with respective countries.
The first and foremost issue to be decided is as to whether the area of projected terrace (open to sky) is liable to be included within the meaning of expression built-up area contained in clause (c) of section 80IB(10) of the Act.
Direct Stay Application filed before the Tribunal is maintainable and it is not the requirement of the law that assessee should necessarily approach the CIT before approaching the Tribunal for grant of stay.
Whether the assessee firm can get the benefit of Sec. 54EC, even though an investment in respect of capital gain is made by the two partners individually in the notified securities e. bonds issued by the Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd. (RECL)?
Entire case of the Assessing Officer rests on Explanation (ii) to section 80IB(10)(a) of the Act which prescribes that the date of completion of construction of the housing project shall be taken to be the date on which the completion certificate in respect of such housing project is issued by the local authority.
While granting the exemption or renewal of exemption under section 80G(5) of the Act, the role of CIT is limited to look into the nature of activities being carried on by the institution or fund and the violation if any, of the provisions of section 13 of the Act and its various sub‑sections are to be looked into by the Assessing Officer while deciding the issue
The assessee is a non-scheduled Co-operative Bank carrying on banking business in terms of a license issued by Reserve Bank of India (RBI), and is thus governed by Circulars of RBI relating to Prudential Norms, Income Recognition, Asset Classification, Provisioning
In this case, assessee has earned by way of dividends a sum of Rs.5,45,58,685/-, which is exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act and thus the same does not form part of the total income under the Act. In the computation of income, assessee having regard to section 14A of the Act
