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

Pune ITAT: Housing Society Wins U/s 80P Deduction on Interest from Cooperative Banks No Double Taxation on Liability Write-Back: Delhi ITAT Deletes Section 41(1) Addition and Notional Interest Demand Copy-Paste Reasons Sink Reassessment: Delhi ITAT Quashes Reopening for Non-Application of Mind No 14A Disallowance Without Satisfaction, No Penalty on Debatable Issues Section 54 Relief Cannot Be Denied If Capital Gains Are Invested Before Filing Return u/s 139(4): Bangalore ITAT 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Your email address will not be published.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 *

Search Post by Date
June 2026
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930