-
ITAT - Even if the expenditure is of enduring benefit, but having not been incurred in the capital field, is to be allowed as deduction.
DCIT vs. Autoline Industries Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9609 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
ITAT - Where the directors had given services and in recognition thereof, there was proposal to pay commission to the said directors, then the same could not be questioned merely on the basis of speculation by the Revenue that the same was to avoid payment of dividend tax.
Arihantam Infraprojects Pvt Ltd vs JCIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9579 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
S. 43B/ 145A: Taxes collected by the assessee, which remain unpaid, have to be added to the income even if the same are not debited to the P&L A/c and claimed as a deduction
Munaf Ibrahim Memon vs. ITO
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9550 (ITAT-PUNE) · Sections 43B, 145A
-
ITAT - Consideration received by an individual for relinquishing his rights over trademark jointly owned with assignee by way of family arrangement is a non-taxable capital receipt.
D.S. Thakur vs. ITO
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9433 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
ITAT - Income enhanced pursuant to expense disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is “eligible profits” for computing deduction u/s 10B.
ACIT vs Precision Camshafts Limited
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9431 (ITAT-PUNE) · Sections 10B, 40(a)(ia)
-
ITAT - No TDS u/s 194H on amount paid to a credit company towards “authority to guarantee” under a risk sharing agreement.
John Deere India Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT(A)
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9430 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 194H
-
Scope of Explanation 5A to S. 271(1)(c) on deemed concealment despite income having been offered in the search return explained
Sarita Kaur Manjeet Singh Chopra vs. ITO
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9342 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
S. 10A/ 10B: After AY 2001-02 when s. 10A/ 10B became “deduction” provisions instead of “exemption” provisions, the deduction has to be computed before adjusting brought forward unabsorbed losses /depreciation
Vishay Components India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9273 (ITAT-PUNE) · Sections. 10A, 10B
-
ITAT - Since working capital position of assessee was better as compared to comparables companies, therefore working capital adjustment was to be made in hands of comparables.
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1 (2), Pune v. Emptoris Technologies India (P.) Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 9087 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenINTL.aspx?ID=8619&Category=INTLDecisions&CategoryType=Zip
-
Books cannot be rejected when PAN mentioned and TDS was deducted
VV Constructions v ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8965 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
ITAT- Addition based on third party evidence not tenable if no evidence found from assessee because. No reliance can be placed on the statements of a third person.
Shri Vinit Ranawat vs. ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8884 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
ITAT - Since FTS has not been claimed by assessee as revenue expenditure, same would not fall for consideration in section 40(a)(i). No disallowance of 'FTS'.
Gera Developments (P.) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8863 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=39340&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Where funds of Trust were utilized for purpose of purchase of car in name of trustee, the same can not be allowed as exemption under sec. 11.
Audyogik Shikshan Mandal v. Income-tax officer, Ward -8(1), Pune
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8678 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=42578&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 10(23C) (iiiab): Law on treating an educational institution as running with a profit motive and treating the donations received by it as “capitation fee” on the basis of the allegation of the persons who have made the said donation explained
Deccan Education Society vs. ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 7200 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 10(23C) (iiiab)
-
ITAT - Stay granted to Vodafone for non - deduction of TDS u/s 194H in respect of over 27 crores demand.
Vodafone Cellular Ltd. vs. ADIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 7069 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section. 194H
-
ITAT - Compounding fees for violating construction norms levied by municipal authorities is not allowable in view of explanation to Sec 37(1).
Modi Builders vs. JCIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 7066 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section, 37(1)
-
ITAT - As per proviso to section 201(3), AO was required to pass the order u/s.201(1)/201(1A) on or before 31- 03-2011.
M/s. Vamona Developers Pvt. Ltd. V. DCIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6999 (ITAT-PUNE) · Sections. 201(1), 201(1A), 201(3)
-
ITAT - Merely because assessee had violated (condition of max built-up area) provisions of section 80-IB(10)(c) in respect of two units, deduction under section 80-IB(10) could not be denied in entirety.
Income-tax Officer, Ward-2, Ratnagiri v. Paras Builders
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6970 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=41000&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Where prices varies on account of various issues, then CUP method cannot be applied and it is most appropriate to apply TNMM method.
Amphenol Interconnect India (P.) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-8
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6961 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenINTL.aspx?ID=8273&Category=INTLDecisions&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - In the absence of any evidence to suggest that transaction allegedly noted on loose paper pertained to year in which assessee firm was in existence; No sec. 69 additions in name of firm can be made after its dissolution.
Mantri Developers v. Income-tax Officer
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6959 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=41356&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.