Sponsored
    Follow Us:

ITAT Pune

Deduction u/s. 80IB(10) cannot be denied even if area of housing project is less than 1 acre or for non ownership of land

September 30, 2015 2654 Views 0 comment Print

Bhujbal Brothers Construction Company V/s. DCIT (ITAT Pune) Deduction u/s. 80I1B(10) on housing project at Damodar Residency has been denied primarily on two counts­(i) the area of the housing project is less than 1 acre, and (ii) the land on which the housing project has been developed does not belong to the assessee.

Addition based on third party evidence not tenable if no evidence found from assessee

September 19, 2015 9007 Views 0 comment Print

Shri Vinit Ranawat vs. ACIT (ITAT Pune)- Referring to the provisions of section 153A he submitted that the same is to be invoked for making an assessment of the person searched on the basis of the material found during the course of search on that person.

Addition made on account of third party evidence without establishing identity of Assessee not valid

September 16, 2015 4130 Views 0 comment Print

In case of Prabhat Chandra S Jain Vs. ACIT Pune bench of ITAT have held that where it is not established that name PC Jain of Mumbai written in the said document was in fact the assessee before us and in the absence of any evidence having been found to establish that the assessee

TP: Lower turnover cannot be sole basis for exclusion

August 28, 2015 1285 Views 0 comment Print

ITAT Delhi held in the case American Express (India) Private Limited vs. DCIT that even though the assessee in its TP study has included the turnover filter of less than Rs.1 crore, the assessee has given reasons for inclusion of these two companies in the list of comparables

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

August 27, 2015 1796 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 13948 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 1846 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 1336 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 9107 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 2249 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.

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
February 2025
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728