Rajendra Venkat Reddy Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) The issue in the present appeal relates to the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer sought to levy penalty in respect of addition of Rs.15,00,000/- being unexplained cash deposits in the bank accounts held by the appellant. The addition was purportedly made u/s […]
Clean Science & Technology Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (A) (ITAT Pune) The issue in the present appeal relates to the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. On perusal of the penalty order as well as the assessment order, it would reveal that the penalty was levied for furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income […]
Poonawalla Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) The only issue pressed is about restricting the addition under Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 by considering only such investments which yielded tax free dividend income. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in ACB India Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 108 (Del) has held that the […]
Association of Indian Forging Industry Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) Association of Indian Forging Industry (hereinafter referred to as appellant) is a not-for-profit company incorporated u/s 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 and is also registered u/s 12A of the I.T. Act 1961, therefore eligible for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. As per the memorandum […]
ACIT Vs Rinder India Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Pune) We note that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of automobiles signaling lights and other electrical items. The assessee filed its return of income declaring a total income of Rs.2,56,73,220/- and the AO determined the same at Rs.4,31,12,090/- inter alia making disallowance of […]
Sunil M. Bhide Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Pune) It is seen from the penalty order that the assessee pleaded before the AO that he started construction of a commercial building on his plot. The construction work was halted because of paucity of funds. The said plot of land along with part construction was leased out […]
Further, there is lack of communication between the tax advisors and the Board of Directors due to which the appeal could not be filed before this Tribunal within stipulated time. He stated that this appeal was filed with a delay of 423 days when a call received from the office of Tax Recovery Officer regarding tax arrears and made enquiries with tax counsel, came to know that the appeal against the order of CIT(A) is required to be filed.
Balram Shitaldas Ahuja Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) The assessee’s sole substantive grievance contested during the course of hearing challenges correctness of both the lower authorities action disallowing its mortgage expenditure of Rs.55 lakhs as cost of acquisition with the corresponding indexation. Distinction between the mortgage created by the previous owner which is discharged by the […]
Addition for difference in Share of profit from Partnership due to Mistake in lowering the profit in revised Return same not sustainable
Income from Sale of Shares treated as Business Income as Assessee himself treated the same as Business Income in earlier & Subsequent years
