-
In the present case, with the passing of rectification order u/s 154 of the Act, original order passed u/s 143(3) will be substituted by the new order with denial of claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(b).
BEED TALUKA DHUD VAVSAYIK SAHAKARI SANGH LIMITED VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD – 1, BEED.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19879 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77020&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The compensation for granting the right to render BPO services was chargeable to tax u/s 28(va) owing to its revenue character, and thus the same was treated as a business receipt by the assessee as well.
Cummins Inc Vs DDIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19823 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
So long as there exists a direct link between the eligible undertaking and some income, the same is profit of the business of undertaking, even if may not be derived from the export of computer software etc.
iGate Global Solutions Ltd Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19807 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 10A
-
Payment received by assessee from Indian counterpart towards provision of IT Support services, doesn't constitute royalty / FTS under the Income-tax Act or under Article 13 of India-France DTAA, absent satisfaction of make- available condition.
Faurecia Automotive Holding Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19712 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
Assessment order in the case of the assessee was passed on 16.12.2011. During that time, therefore, the word “belong” was there and as facts and situation in this case, the diary recovered during the course of search from the premises of the Chhoriya Group did not belong to the assessee and therefore, provisions of Section 153C(1)(b) is not applicable to the case of the assessee since amendment itself come into place on 01.06.2015.
SHRI RATANLAL C. BAFNA VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, JALGAON.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19677 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76446&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 254(2) MA: If an appeal against the order of the ITAT has been filed in the High Court and the same has been admitted by the High Court, a Miscellaneous Application u/s 254(2) seeking rectification and recall of the order is not maintainable. The MA is maintainable only if the appeal is pending and has not been admitted (RW Promotions 376 ITR 126 (Bom) distinguished, Muni Seva Ashram 38 TM.com 110 (Guj) followed)
Ratanlal C. Bafna vs. JCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19659 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 254(2)
-
S. 292BB: If the assessee objects to the AO's jurisdiction but his AR later conveys no-objection, it means that the assessee has withdrawn his objection. Submission that the AR had no authority to convey no-objection and cannot bind the assessee is not acceptable. Once the assessee empowers his AR to appear before authorities, all of the AR's concessions are binding on the assessee (Himalayan Coop Group Hsg Soc 2015 7 SCC 373 distinguished)
K. S. Cold Storage vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19601 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 292BB
-
S. 143(2) Notice/ Rule 127: There is a difference between "issue" of notice and "service" of notice. Service of notice is a pre-condition for assuming jurisdiction to frame the assessment. Under Rule 127, service at the PAN address is valid even if it is different from the address in the Return. If a notice is issued but is returned unserved by the postal authorities and thereafter no effort is made to serve another notice before the deadline, it shall be deemed to be a case of "non-service" and the assessment order will have to be quashed
Anil Kisanlal Marda vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19578 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 143(2)
-
ITAT - Agricultural income - correctly held that there is no merit in assessing total receipts in the hands of assessee and at best, the AO could have determined the loss/income assessable in the hands of assessee - growing of hybrid seeds can never be held to be non-agricultural activity - entitled to claim deduction u/s 10(1)
THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1 (2) , AND THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (4) , PUNE VERSUS GENUINE SEEDS PVT. LTD.,
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19569 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76129&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Since no powers u/s. 92CA have been bestowed on TPO to decide the situs of control and management of affairs. Therefore, it is the AO who has to come to a finding in this regard.
Sava Healthcare Ltd (earlier known as Anagha Pharma Pvt Ltd) vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19556 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
ITAT - Fees for Management services - Even if, we proceed with the assumption that the mark up of 5% is not at ALP, which should be as low as 1% or even less than that, still the difference arising on account of such mark-up going even up to 0% in a comparable uncontrolled situation, would be within +/-5% range, not requiring any transfer pricing adjustment.
INA BEARINGS INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-11, PUNE AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19552 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76088&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee owns three flats and that since the assessee was the owner of more than one residential house as on the date of transfer of land, he was not eligible for deduction u/s 54F of the Act.
JAGADISH PRABHAKAR DESHPANDE VERSUS THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PUNE.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19551 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76089&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
CIT's exercise of jurisdiction u/s. 263 when assessment order passed by AO was void for AY 2010-11 is quashed.
Pioneer Distilleries Limited Vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19542 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 263
-
Sec.43A becomes applicable when the assets are acquired from a country outside India and does not apply to acquisition of indigenous assets.
Neuman & Esser Compressor Application Centre Pvt. Ltd Vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19452 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 43CA
-
Citing 'supervening impossibility' business loss set-off is allowed though not claimed in return.
Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19451 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
There is no provision in the Act to allow filing of miscellaneous Application (MA) against an order passed by the ITAT in miscellaneous Application filed by assesse.
Mercedes Benz Education Academy Vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward 11(1)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19281 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
ITAT - No TDS u/s. 194-I on wharfage charges payment to the Maharashtra Maritime Board as the same is not akin to 'rent'.
Angre Port (P) Ltd Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19124 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
S. 201(1) TDS: The time limit specified in s. 201(3) & (4) for passing orders does not apply to cases where payments are made to non-residents. In cases of payments made to non-residents, an order passed after one year from the end of the FY in which the proceedings were initiated is void ab initio and liable to be quashed
Atlas Copco (India) Limited vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18030 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 201(1)
-
ITAT - Local Body Tax related to prior period is allowable u/s 43B even though no provision was made in the earlier years.
VINOD PAHUMAL RAMCHANDANI VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WAD 1 (2), SOLAPUR
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16811 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=70961&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 10(38) Bogus Capital Gains from Penny Stocks: Though the AO did not find any mistake in the documentation furnished by the assessee, there is need for finding of fact on (i) the nature of the shares transactions; (ii) make-believe nature of paper work; (iii) Camouflage the bogus nature; and, (iv) the relevance of human probabilities etc (NDR Promoters 410 ITR 379 (Del) referred)
Shamim Imtiaz Hingora vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16791 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 10(38)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.