-
Even though the ld. CIT was rightfully entitled to take recourse to the Explanation 2.,t is palpable that none of the four clauses of the Explanation 2 applies to the case under consideration. The sequitur is that the revisionary power, even under the enlarged scope of the Explanation 2, was not legally exercisable.
Nalco Company,USA Nalco Water India limited Vs CIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26141 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
As the scope of Royalty came to be expanded after the close of the financial year, the same could not have triggered disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia).
Barclays Technology Centre India Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26074 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 40(a)(ia)
-
Acquainting someone in a formal manner with techniques to boost sales does not stand at par with rendering marketing services. Simply equipping or enabling the others for doing an activity is a step anterior to rendition of such services.
M/s. Sandvik AB Vs DCIT (IT)
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26009 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
If title of an immovable property stands in the name of two persons, it evidences both as co-owners title of the immovable property which is decisive of ownership and not the understanding outside the records which both the parties may have entered into.
Perviz Sarosh Batliwala Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24722 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
In the present case the assets were acquired in India, therefore, the conditions of making actual repayment of foreign currency loan as stipulated under Sec.43A is not a condition for making necessary adjustment in the actual cost of the asset, thus general principles of law would be applicable.
Aesseal India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24664 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
In the present case the source & destination (i.e. investment) are business income/assets, thus as a fortiori, such an income will be considered as Business income covered under Chapter IV-D of the Act forming part of book-profit for the purposes of allowing remuneration to partners.
Sagar Samrat Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24546 (ITAT-PUNE) · Sections 69, 69A
-
The requirement of formal issue of completion certificate from local authority within the time period is not mandatory in nature and if the project is found to be completed within the time period on evidence, the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80IB cannot be denied.
ACIT Vs Kaiser Jamil Khan
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24265 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 80IB(10)
-
The superior courts have held the Income Tax Act to be a welfare legislation, meaning thereby that the tax-payer practical circumstances have to be looked into by the quasi-judicial authority while undertaking assessment proceedings and penal proceedings, thus considering the totality of the facts AO is directed to delete the penalty so levied.
ACIT Vs M/s Gepach International
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24262 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
CIT(A) had rightfully allowed deduction on account of penal interest paid to RBI for non-maintenance of SLR and CRR including especially the provision made for the same to the extent of Rs.6,13,89,000/-.
The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs The Beed District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24211 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
Merely having surplus in one year does not change the character of the trust to a business or profit-making entity which was otherwise a charitable trust advancing work of general public utility and certainly not hit by the first proviso to Section 2 (15) of the Act.
Credai- Pune Metro Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23169 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 11
-
When we peruse the order of assessment, we find there is no discussion at all as rightly pointed out by the Ld. DR on this very fact regarding the difference in figures in the original return and corrected computation.
HINDUMAL BALMUKUND INVESTMENT CO. PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, PUNE.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22996 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84217&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The essence of the matter is to examine as to whether a particular expenditure/loss is deductible and not whether the same is recorded in the books of account. If a particular amount is deductible as per law, the same has to be allowed as deduction irrespective of the fact that it was not recorded in the books of account. It is further noticed that the assessee did not record such diminution of value of securities to the extent of ₹ 2.65 crores in its books of account so as to satisfy the RBI norms, which provide for valuing the securities as such without any diminution in their value at the year end.
M/S. VISHWAS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NASHIK
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22907 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84068&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The essence of the matter was to examine whether a particular expenditure was deductible and not whether the same was recorded in the books of account. If a particular amount was deductible as per law, the same had to be allowed as deduction irrespective of the fact that it was not recorded in the books of account.
M/s. Vishwas Co-operative Bank Ltd., Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22898 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
Assessee paid the above sum towards VRS of certain employees of Calcutta unit. It is noticed that similar issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case for the immediately succeeding assessment year. Vide order The Tribunal has decided it in favour of the assessee.
FOSECO INDIA LIMITED VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE – 1 (2) , PUNE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22821 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83915&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Miscellaneous receipts can be sub-grouped into three lots i.e. (i) the receipts covered by the earlier Tribunal's order, (ii) the receipts, assessee never claimed deduction, and, (iii) the business connected receipts or otherwise. So far as sub-group one is concerned, we find the receipts is covered by the order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2008-09.
LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD. VERSUS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR AND (VICE-VERSA) AND ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR VERSUS VIJAYKUMAR RAJARAM SHAH
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22818 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83897&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Finding recorded by the Ld. CIT(Exemption) that the registration cannot be granted for the assessee as it is involved in imparting the training to the employees of the state govt, is incorrect and contrary to the law. For this purposes, we may rely upon the decision of CIT Vs. Andhra Pradesh Police Welfare Society and Water and land Management Training Research Institute and DIT Vs. National Safely Counsel.
VIBHAGIYA PRASHASKIYA PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHA, C/O. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER OFFICE CAMPUS VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) PUNE.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22575 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83408&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is settled position of law that within stipulated time, application has to be made before the concerned authority and again within specified time, the project has to be completed and after completion, the Municipal Authority/local authority has to give a completion certificate only then the deduction u/s.80IB(10) is justified.
Shewale & Sons Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22554 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 80-IB(10)
-
It is an undisputed fact that the assessee is a qualified doctor, a Gynecologist and Anesthetist. She runs a nursing home. It is also admitted fact that the assessee attends to the patients and treats them in OPD and others. Therefore, mere running a nursing home/hospital does not convert a medical doctor into a business woman. Running a nursing home by her alone is a part of the medical profession. It is a different way of conducting her medical profession.
DR. SMT. RANJANA S. NARGOLKAR VERSUS ITO, WARD-11 (2) , PUNE.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22488 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83267&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Revenue Authorities could not bring any other corroborative evidences to substantiate the said noting in the loose paper. The entire addition has been based on this single noting found in this loose paper without any corroborative evidences. Even at the time of hearing, the Ld. DR could not place on record any relevant document, evidences in order to substantiate and corroborate the addition made on the basis of that entry in the loose paper.
RAJKUMAR B. AGARWAL VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2) , PUNE.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22470 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83193&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Inspector had conducted detailed enquiry and have also contacted various students who are exempted from paying the fees by the assessee trust. Neither the copy of the report was provided to the assessee nor the comments of the assessee were called for on the report of the Inspector. CIT(Exemption) without confronting the report of the Inspector have wrongly held that the assessee was into commercial activities.
SANT UPASNI MAHARAJ BAHUUDESHIYA SEVABHAVI SANSTHA VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22391 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82931&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.