Sponsored
    Follow Us:

ITAT Pune

Remuneration to partners should be Authorised by Partnership deed but quantification not necessary

June 29, 2009 2273 Views 0 comment Print

In Asstt. CIT v. Suman Construction (2009) 27 (II) ITCL 329 (Pune ‘A’-Trib) the assessing officer had noticed that the assessee had claimed salary to partners of Rs. 2,20,000. However, in his opinion as per the partnership deed filed along with the return in the past assessment year, there was no specification of this salary payable to the partners.

When information available in public domain is not sufficient to make the comparisons possible, then some approximations and reasonable assumptions are to be made

May 10, 2009 1032 Views 0 comment Print

19. One of the things which is clearly discernable from the facts of this case is that so far as the year before us is concerned, which was incidentally first full year of assessee’s operations, the import content of the raw materials was as high at 98.95%. This is materially different from the import content of the raw material in the cases of the comparables selected by the revenue authorities.

Penalty can not be imposed where the controversy is regarding the legality of the claim made by the assessee: SC

May 6, 2009 781 Views 0 comment Print

In respect of AY 2002-2003, the assessee claimed by a revised return that the loss suffered in respect of one s. 10A unit was not liable to be set-off against the profits of another s. 10A unit. The AO rejected the claim and the assessee accepted the decision of the AO. On the question whether the assessee was liable for penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) for “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income”, especially in the light

Merely because an addition is made to the income declared by the assessee, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed

April 28, 2009 2379 Views 0 comment Print

In Dharmendra Textile Processors’ case (supra), Their Lordships have held that that penalty under section 271(1)(c) provides remedy for loss of revenue. A penalty under section 271 (1)(c) involves payment of an additional amount, which is a civil liability to provide for remedy for loss of revenue, while a sentence of imprisonment under section 276 C means loss of individual liberty which does not help revenue in anyway except as serving as a deterrent for the potential defaulters.

Date which is material and relevant for purposes of computing limitation period in certain cases under IT Act

February 25, 2009 402 Views 0 comment Print

7. There was a search and seizure action against the assessee on 10-10-1995. In pursuance thereto, the A.0 initiated proceedings u/s 158BC of the Act. Notice u/s 158BC read with section 158BD dated 10-9-1996 was issued to the assessee requiring the assessee to prepare and file the return of income in the prescribed form setting forth his total income including the undisclosed income for the block period from 1-4-1985 to 10-10-1995

When penalty under section 271C of IT Act is not leviable on Assessee for failure to deduct tax at source

February 15, 2009 1075 Views 0 comment Print

14. The assessee has also taken a plea that the assessee did not deduct the tax at source on the interest liability credited to L T Ltd. as per the legal advice given by M/s. C.C. Chokshi Co. This explanation of the assessee has been rejected by the C1T(A) by saying that this submission of the assessee that no TDS was deducted by the assessee under a legal advice of M/s. C.C. Chokshi Co., lacks merit because this advice is

Even an Indian company can claim the benefits of non-discrimination under the DTAA

January 31, 2009 1393 Views 0 comment Print

Where the assessee was an Indian company and more than 51% of its equity share capital was held by a German company (Daimler Benz AG) and pursuant to an offshore merger the said shares came to be held by another German company (DaimlerChrysler AG) and there being a change of more than 51% of the beneficial interest in the shares, the question arose whether section 79 of the Act (pre- amendment)

Tribunal cannot examine validity of the action of search under section 132 of IT Act, 1961

November 19, 2008 693 Views 0 comment Print

11. The powers of the Tribunal emanates from the provision of section 254 of the Act and not from any other provisions. The provisions of section 132 of the Act considered by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court only specifies the circumstances under which search warrant can be issued by the competent authority. Such provisions have nothing to do with the powers of the Tribunal

No additions solely on the basis of material found in possession of third party

October 3, 2008 630 Views 0 comment Print

In the present case, admittedly, no incriminating material was found relating to the alleged unaccounted sales of jewellery by the assessee to M/s. Ranka Jewelers in the course of search carried out at the premises of the assessee. The material relied upon by the Assessing Officer was found during the search at the premises of the third party namely Prakash Salunkhe. Therefore, the question of existence of such nexus as mentioned in the preceeding paragraph simply does not arise. Consequently, no addition could be made solely on the basis of material found from the position of the third party.

Coca Cola India (P) Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (ITAT Pune)

June 30, 2008 1054 Views 0 comment Print

Service charges (assessee’s appeal) (i) whether the services rendered benefited group companies. (ii) whether the expenses were incurred to take care of the TCCC brand image. (iii) whether rendering services to the bottlers could be a ground for making disallowance.

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
March 2025
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31