ITAT Pune held that contribution of undivided title and rights in the land as share of capital in AOP is taxable under section 45(3) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Pune held that claim of indexed cost of development not acceptable as assessee failed to furnish any evidence towards the same.
Dinesh Sitaram Patil Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) We note that, while culminating the reassessment proceeding in the case of the assessee, the Ld. AO vide concluding para placed at page 4 of his order communicated the assessee his action of initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of Act for ‘under reporting / mis-reporting’ of income […]
State Government Undertaking may be considered as a State instrumentality within the definition of article 12 of Constitution of India, the same cannot be treated as Central or State Government
ITAT held that when two views are legally possible and Assessing Officer adopts one view the Assessment Order cannot be said to be erroneous for CIT to invoke jurisdiction u/s. 263
ITAT Pune held that waiver of cash loan by holding company is not income within the purview of section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, addition unsustainable.
Pre-condition of filing of a revised return nowhere impinges upon jurisdiction of various appellate forums; NFAC can very well entertain even fresh claims without a revised return.
Deepa Satish Borse Vs Income Tax Officer (ITAT Pune) ITAT held that once it has come on record that the assessee’s matrimonial matter has already supported her case of having received the impugned sum by way of cash prior to demonetization for maintenance of herself and their sole girl child followed by similar arrangement post […]
In the case of the assessee, it is an admitted fact that minors and unregistered firms cannot become members of the society. Thus, assessee had paid interest to minor and unregistered firms who were not members of the assessee. This is violation of section 194A of the Act.
ITAT Pune held that as the assessee failed to establish why the shops were sold at loss to the partners and interest persons, principle of fraud squarely gets applicable. Accordingly, disallowance of loss duly justified.
