Search
Advanced Search Search with field filters
/adv
Navigation
Home Go to homepage
/home
Direct Tax Income Tax resources
GST GST Acts, Rules & Case Laws
Company Law Companies Act & SEBI
Due Date Tracker Statutory compliance deadlines
/due
Due Date Calendar Calendar view of compliance deadlines
Daily Digest Today's tax updates and articles
/digest
Landmark Rulings

ITAT Pune — Direct Tax

383 rulings

  1. ITAT Pune · 25 Nov 2019
    The doctrine of impossibility becomes relevant here too. If the assessee is aware of the obligations of the Statute for paying AMT in the assessment year 2013-14, the assessee would not have taken of this project at all in the year 2007. Alternatively, the assessee would have followed a project completion method thereby he would be have planned to the taxation as per the then existing provisions of the Act.

    M/s. Vikram Developers & Promoters Vs DCIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20510 (ITAT-PUNE)

  2. ITAT Pune · 11 Nov 2019
    Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of an asset (other than a capital asset), being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed or assessable by any authority of a State Government for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer.

    SEEMA SUBHASH ZAMBAD VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE-3, AURANGABAD

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20413 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79032&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  3. ITAT Pune · 08 Nov 2019
    The extant issue of deduction for payment of excessive price for purchase of sugarcane, raised in most of the appeals under consideration, is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Respectfully following the precedent, we set-aside the impugned orders on this score and remit the matter to the file of the respective A.Os. for deciding it afresh as per law.

    KARMAVEER SHANKARRAO KALE SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD. VERSUS ITO, WARD-3, AHMEDNAGAR

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20386 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78976&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  4. ITAT Pune · 07 Nov 2019
    When there was no business operation of LD&PL during the period of purchase and sale of shares and astronomical increase of share price of LD&PL which led to returns at 350%, in our opinion, is unjustified.

    Narendra Shrikishan Agarwal Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20385 (ITAT-PUNE)

  5. ITAT Pune · 25 Oct 2019
    Interest received is in the nature of Business Income and needs to be netted off against the interest paid to Bank. If the interest paid and earned are considered in totality, the assessee has paid net interest therefore states that AO was not justified in considering the interest income to be non tonnage activity and taxing the same at normal rate.

    B.G. Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20313 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 115VP

  6. ITAT Pune · 23 Oct 2019
    Once the assessee paid ₹ 2.00 lakh to another person out of her regular books of account, there cannot be any question of the assessee not substantiating the source of loan, which is overtly from the regular books of account maintained by her. This sort of enquiry, if warranted, ought to have been conducted in the hands of the recipient to justify the source of the loans received and not the payer of the loan, who has given loan out of her regular books of account.

    MR. KAILASH KANHAIYALAL GIDWANI, MR. SUNIL KANHAIYALAL GIDWANI, MR. AMIT KANHAIYALAL GIDWANI VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE-2 SANGLI

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20304 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78667&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  7. ITAT Pune · 18 Oct 2019
    There is no dispute on the fact that the assessee did not record any expenditure on this issue in its books for the financial year relevant to the assessment year 2007-08 and accordingly no deduction was claimed in the preceding year on this score. It was only on the mutual settlement arrived at between the assessee and Kinetic Engineering Ltd. that the assessee depicted the amount of ₹ 124.53 lakh as expenditure and claimed deduction during the year.

    KLASSIC WHEELS PVT. LTD., MR. SUNIT MUNOT, M/S. SUMESH INDUSTRIES, VERSUS DCIT, AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE, AHMEDNAGAR

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20270 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78548&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  8. ITAT Pune · 04 Oct 2019
    The delay in completion of the project was completely circumstantial and neither the assessee nor the builders had any mala-fide intentions for such delay, hence benefit of Sec.54F cannot be denied.

    Lalitkumar Kesarimal Jain Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20215 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 54F

  9. ITAT Pune · 24 Sep 2019
    The services were rendered in Taiwan and utilized in Taiwan and not in India. The payments made towards services rendered outside India for use by the Taiwanese contractor does not constitute FTS u/s 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act.

    Kumar Kondiba Shingare Vs DCIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20139 (ITAT-PUNE)

  10. ITAT Pune · 18 Sep 2019
    Neither actual cost as envisaged under section 43(1) was determined by the AO, nor satisfaction was recorded by the AO to the effect that the transfer of asset at a rate higher than the written down value was with ulterior motive of reducing tax liability by claiming depreciation on enhanced cost.

    Galaxy Care Laparoscopy Institute Pvt. Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20113 (ITAT-PUNE)

  11. ITAT Pune · 17 Sep 2019
    The plot of land for which permission for construction could be granted in future (though not granted on the valuation date) are urban lands to be included in the net wealth of the assesse.

    Rajendra M. Dev. & Build. Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Wealth Tax

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20105 (ITAT-PUNE)

  12. ITAT Pune · 14 Sep 2019
    Voluntary payments made by parent company to its loss making Indian company can also be understood to be payments made in order to protect the capital investment of assessee company. It was further held that if that is so, then the payment in question could not be held to be revenue receipts, hence they were capital receipts in the hands of assessee.

    NALCO WATER INDIA LIMITED VERSUS ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, PUNE

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20083 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77692&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  13. ITAT Pune · 13 Sep 2019
    In First Appellate proceedings has enhanced GP addition by extrapolating sales for the month of October, 1997 to the entire year. The contentions of the assessee is that October being the month of Diwali festival the sales are at peak. Hence, sales during festival months/seasons cannot be extrapolated to the entire year. We find merit in the contentions of the assessee.

    M/S. NANCHAND & CO., SHAH KHANDELWAL JAIN & ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2 (2) , PUNE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2 (2) , PUNE

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20069 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77640&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  14. ITAT Pune · 07 Sep 2019
    S. 144C/ 254: (i) Condonation of delay of 1018 days: None should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal. Delay due to improper legal advice should be condoned. A technical view of dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay should not be taken if the legal issue has to be decided for other years (ii) A draft assessment order u/s 144C issued with a notice of demand u/s 156 and a s/ 271(1)(c) penalty notice is null and void (Eaton Fluid Power 96 TM.com 512 followed, BS Ltd 94 TM.com 346 (Hyd) distinguished)

    Atlas Copco (India) Limited vs. DCIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20037 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 144C, 254

  15. ITAT Pune · 06 Sep 2019
    Where the provisions of section 206AA of the Act cannot override the provisions of charging sections 4 and 5 of the Act and also where under section 90(2) of the Act, it is provided that DTAAs would override domestic law, in cases where the provisions of DTAAs are more beneficial to the assessee.

    THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - CIRCLE I, PUNE. VERSUS KOSO INDIA PVT. LTD.

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20019 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77464&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  16. ITAT Pune · 06 Sep 2019
    TPO in the second round carried out the benchmarking exercise all afresh treating the assessee as KPO service provider as against his earlier view of a BPO service provider in the first round. After passing of the order by the TPO on 21.11.2016, the AO proceeded to straightaway pass the final assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act on 28-11-2016. It is, ergo, overt that pursuant to the fresh benchmarking done by the TPO in his second order, the AO omitted to pass a draft order which could have been challenged by the assessee before the DRP or the CIT(A).

    M/S. CAPSTONE SECURITIES ANALYSIS PVT. LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-1 (1) , PUNE

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20018 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77465&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  17. ITAT Pune · 31 Aug 2019
    An overview of section 144C deciphers that a draft order passed under sub-section (1) is only a tentative order which does not fasten any tax liability on the assessee. In case variations to the income in the draft order are accepted by the assessee or no objections are received within 30 days, the AO completes the assessment under section 144C(3) on the basis of draft order and the matter ends.

    DCIT, CIRCLE-8, PUNE VERSUS ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LIMITED AND (VICE-VERSA)

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19976 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77341&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  18. ITAT Pune · 29 Aug 2019
    The Ld. AR demonstrated that the assessment order dated 15.01.2013 was draft assessment order which is evident from the very heading of the order. Along with this draft assessment order, the AO has issued notice of demand u/s.156 and penalty notice u/s.274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) and therefore, procedure laid down in Section 144C has been violated.

    KOHLER POWER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED. (EARLIER KNOWN AS “LOMBARDINI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED”). VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD.

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19957 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77284&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  19. ITAT Pune · 27 Aug 2019
    If a particular income is included only in the total income under the Act but not under the total income of other country, or vice-versa, the same cannot qualify for the benefit under the provision. Therefore, the relief u/s. 90(1) (a)(i) of the Act has to be granted only to the extent of such doubly taxed income and not beyond that.

    iGate Global Solutions Ltd Vs ACIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19942 (ITAT-PUNE)

  20. ITAT Pune · 22 Aug 2019
    Tribunal in its order passed in quantum proceedings, it can be seen that the assessee computed the ALP of the international transaction as per the manner prescribed in the section.

    DCIT, CIRCLE-8, PUNE VERSUS ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LIMITED, MUMBAI-PUNE ROAD

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19906 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77098&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.


An unhandled error has occurred. Reload ×

Rejoining the server...

Rejoin failed... trying again in seconds.

Failed to rejoin.
Please retry or reload the page.

The session has been paused by the server.

Failed to resume the session.
Please retry or reload the page.