-
Vide order dated 06- 02-2020, the Tribunal has directed to adopt ₹ 1,032/- as per sq. mtr as fair market value on the date of sale in that case, namely, 08-01-2004 against survey number 187. It, therefore, emerges that the stamp value of ₹ 955/- in this case is still less than the fair market value determined by the Tribunal for similar property in the case of Shri Nitin N. Shewale. Agree with the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) in restricting the addition by adopting fair market value as on the date of transfer of land at ₹ 955/- p.s.m., being the stamp value.
SHRI HEMANT SUDAM TUPE VERSUS ITO, WARD-1 (3) , PUNE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22388 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82906&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee had made particular application for granting of approval on 14.08.2008. However, the approval was only granted by the Pr. CIT on 06.03.2017. CIT has taken almost 9 years to grant approval, in our view by any stretch of reasoning, the time taken for granting the approval cannot be justified by the Revenue. Lapse/delay on the part of the Pr.CIT for not deciding the approval application of the assessee within a stipulated period of time, cannot be the ground for not allowing the claim of deduction u/s.36(1)(v) to the assessee.
M/S. MAASS FLANGE INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14, PUNE.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22384 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82912&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Clause (c) of section 275(1) of the Act provides that no order u/s 271D of the Act shall be passed after expiry of the financial year, in which the proceedings are completed or six months from the end of the month in which the action for imposition of penalty, is initiated. The relevant financial year, is 2016-17 in this case and the relevant month of initiation of penalty, is April, 2016.
DR. SANJIV KESHAV KARANDE VERSUS ITO, WARD-11 (1) , PUNE.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22373 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82856&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As during the year assessee had purchased the software and it was capitalized and the purchase of software has not been claimed as an expenditure. It is also a fact that no TDS was deducted by the assessee on the purchase price paid by it.
THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE – 6 (1) (1), BANGALORE VERSUS “FIS SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. SUNGARD SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22336 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82685&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We find the reasons given by the ld. AR for the assessee are without merits. We further find, when there is a revision order and an adverse order against the assessee then why the assessee should not have filed the appeal in time, where the issue under consideration was undisputedly decided against the assessee. Considering the same, we are of the opinion that the delay is not condonable and the reasons given by the applicability of the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. is directly applied to this case.
SUNIL MANAKCHAND KOTECHA VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, PR. CIT, CENTRAL-NAGPUR NAGPUR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22319 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82556&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The interest on refund either it can be directly given by the Department to the assessee or as in the present case, suppose if some tax liability is arising with regard to the assessee in respect of the earlier years then the interest on the refund amount if adjusted vis-à-vis those outstanding tax liability i.e. also deemed payment of interest. It has been held in the case of Avada Trading Co. (P.) Ltd.
M/S. FIS SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1 (2), PUNE.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22241 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82320&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee appreciating the assessee‟s explanation relating to some glitches in the software. The said para of CIT(A)‟s order does not have reasons for accepting patent discrepancies appeared in the Profit and Loss Accounts and statement of accounts, dates in the audit reports, etc. No reason is given for the anti-dated Form No.10CCB.
THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE – 3, PUNE VERSUS M/S. VISHRAM DEVELOPERS
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21193 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82241&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Pursuant to co-ordinate bench restoring the issue for fresh determination, AO straightaway passed the impugned order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 directing to charge interest and penalty without first passing draft assessment order.
AB Sandvik Coromant Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21184 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
Mere existence of the close connection and 'more than ordinary profits' are not enough to assume an arrangement as contemplated u/s. 80-IA(10) of the Act. The Assessing Officer is also required to prove any such arrangement existing which resulted in more than ordinary profits. The learned AO has not proved any arrangement between the parties in the facts of the case.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE. VERSUS PERSISTENT SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21168 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82196&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
If the objections are invalid as time barred having not been filed within the time prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 144C, the AO will have to act in terms of Section 144C(3)(b) and complete the assessment within the time prescribed u/s 144C(4)(b) of the Act, namely, within one month from the end of the month in which the period of filing of objections under sub-section (2) expires.
TDK ELECTRONICS AG (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS AG) C/O. EPCOS INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS ACIT (IT), CIRCLE-1, PUNE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21146 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82130&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Mere running a nursing home/hospital does not convert a medical doctor into a business person. Assessee is a professional and the provisions of section 44AA/44AB apply to the assesse.
Dr. Smt. Ranjana S. Nargolkar Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21088 (ITAT-PUNE) · Sections 44AB, 271B
-
Inaction on the part of ld. CIT in passing the order u/s.264 became a raison d'etre for the late filing of appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). Such a delay in my considered opinion constitutes a reasonable cause for the late presentation of the appeal before the ld. first appellate authority.
Manisha Vilas Munot Vs TRO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21087 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 264
-
Merely by mentioning in the ledger account, it was Inter Corporate Deposit, the nature and colour of transaction would not changed to Inter Corporate Deposit, as it continues to be loan/advances. Hence required to be taxed for the purposes of deemed dividend.
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Dhariya Construction Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21069 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 2(22)(e)
-
Sec.43A are applicable when assets are acquired from outside India, thus AO's invocation of Sec.43A is rejected.
Hueco Electronics (I) Pvt. Ltd Vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20890 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 43A
-
Assessee gifted certain Fixed Deposit receipts and other amounts to his wife not only in this year but also in the earlier years. Interest income arising from such FDRs amounting to Rs 7,21,547/- in addition to Venture capital income of Rs 1,11,252/- accruing to wife from such gifts has been religiously clubbed by the assessee in his hands and offered for taxation. Two possible situations of utilization of the assets transferred by husband to wife triggering the clubbing provisions.
UDAY GOPAL BHASKARWAR VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE-13, PUNE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20868 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81425&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There are series of decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Hon'ble High Court expounding scope of exercising powers under section 254(2) of the Act. We do not deem it necessary to recite and recapitulate all of them, but suffice to say that core of all these authoritative pronouncements is that power for rectification under section 254(2) of the Act can be exercised only when mistake, which is sought to be rectified, is an obvious and patent mistake, which is apparent from the record and not a mistake, which is required to be established by arguments and long drawn process of reasoning on points, on which there may conceivably be two opinions.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (1) , PUNE. VERSUS M/S. AGARWAL GROUP CORPORATE HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20820 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81310&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Issue in the present appeal is identical to the one already adjudicated by Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2010-11. The assessee has not placed on record any material to show any distinguishing features in assessment year under appeal. Therefore, we find no reason to take a different view.
RAJDEEP INFRASTRUCTURE VERSUS THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE, AHMEDNAGAR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20807 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81287&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
FTS in terms of ARticle 12 of India-Portuguese DTAA covers payments for services ancillary to the enjoyment of right, property or information as per para 3. The payment in the present case does not satisfy the requirement of use of, or the right to use, any copyright of software, and further, that the parent company did not make available any technical knowledge, experience or skill etc. to the assesse.
CMA CGM Agencies India Private limited Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20795 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 40(a)(i)
-
Assessee was allowed the use of the software for its own business purpose and there was no permission to sub-licence the same. There is a specific bar on the assessee in not sub-licensing the software, which were to be used for its sole business needs. The consideration was for the use of software for its own business purpose and not for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright of software.
CMA CGM AGENCIES INDIA (P.) LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PUNE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20782 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81226&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the present case, some undisclosed business income was admitted to have been earned (Rs.25L) and simultaneously some undisclosed expenditure (Rs.26L) was also incurred which had a direct relation with earning the income. Once this is the position, we fail to appreciate as to how any addition other than Rs.1.00 lakh on this score can be made there is no reason for making or sustaining any addition over and above this amount.
Travelline International Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20697 (ITAT-PUNE)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.