-
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)
-
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)
-
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
-
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
-
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)
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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)
-
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)
-
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)
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.