Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Nirman Sonestaa Developers Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)
Related Assessment Year : 2018-19
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Nirman Sonestaa Developers Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) Compounding Fee for Plan Deviations Not Allowable – ITAT Bangalore Upholds Disallowance Under Explanation 1 to 37(1) Assessee, a partnership firm engaged in construction of flats, paid Rs.76,05,613/- as compounding fee to BBMP for regularising deviations from the sanctioned building plan. AO held the payment to be penal in nature, being compounding of an offence under municipal law, & disallowed it by invoking Explanation 1 to s.37(1). CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. Before Tribunal, no one appeared for Assessee. Tribunal examined th...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.

Author Bio

CA Vijayakumar Shetty qualified in 1994 and in practice since then. Founding partner of Shetty & Co. He is a graduate from St Aloysius College, Mangalore . View Full Profile

My Published Posts

Reopening Fails on Both Counts: Invalid Sec 148A Notice and Time-Barred Sec 148 Render Assessment Void Coffee Income: Rule 7B Overrides Rule 7 – ITAT Remands for Segregation of Own vs Purchased Produce Duty Drawback Taxable Only on Receipt – ITAT Deletes Addition & U/s 270A Penalty Skill Development = “Education” – ITAT Allows Sec 11 Exemption to Charitable Trust No Penalty for Wrong Claim or Head of Income – ITAT Deletes Section 271(1)(c) Penalty View More Published Posts

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Ads Free tax News and Updates
Search Post by Date
April 2026
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930