Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.81 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Patankar Wind Farm Pvt. Ltd.,, ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax,, on 22 December, 2017

Padmavati Wind Energy Pvt.Ltd,, Satara vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,, ... on 7 September, 2018

The Tribunal in the case of M/s. Patankar Wind Farm Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) has held that Sales Tax subsidy is not an operational subsidy and is not linked to the profits of industrial undertaking. The scheme under which the present assessee has received Sales Tax subsidy is same, therefore, there is no reason to take a different view.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Padmavati Wind Energy Pvt. Ltd,, Satara vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2,, Satara on 22 April, 2019

The Tribunal in the case of M/s. Patankar Wind Farm Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) has held that Sales Tax subsidy is not an operational subsidy and is not linked to the profits of industrial undertaking. The scheme under which the present assessee has received Sales Tax subsidy is same, therefore, there is no reason to take a different view.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Parikh Shankarlal Kundanmal,, ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 31 May, 2018

17. The issue arising before us is identical to the issue before Pune Bench of the Tribunal in M/s. Patankar Wind Farm Pvt. Ltd. (supra), which had referred to Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (supra) which has been vehemently relied upon by the ld. AR for the assessee before the Tribunal. Following the parity of the reasoning we hold that the Sales Tax subsidy received by the assessee is revenue receipt to be taxed in the hands of the assessee and the assessee is not entitled to claim the deduction under section 80IA of the Act on such subsidy. The order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this count is ITA Nos.733 to 736/PUN/2017 17 & CO Nos. 22 to 25/PUN/2018 thus reversed and the grounds of appeal No. 2 raised by the Revenue is thus allowed and the ground of Cross Objections No. 3 raised by the assessee is dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Vilas Prabhakar Mungi,, Pune vs Income-Tax Officer,, on 26 March, 2018

"8.2 I have carefully perused the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel. It is seen from the material placed on record that in the Proprietor's capital account for the year ended on 31.03.2007 in the case of M/s Kalpana Agencies, there is a credit entry of Rs. 2,00,000/- with the narration 'By Addition', which means fresh capital of Rs. 2,00,000/- was introduced by the appellant during the year. The appellant argued in the present proceedings that capital introduced in M/s Kalpana Agency was debited in the books of M/s Pooja Agency. But, on verification of Proprietor's capital account for the year ended on 31.03.2007 in the case of M/s Pooja Agencies, no such debit entry of Rs.2,00,000/- was found except general drawings of Rs.2,70,000/-. There is no date wise correlation between these drawings and the capital of Rs.2,00,000/- introduced in M/s Kalpana Agencies. As regards the disallowance 'of expenditure of Rs1,00,000/- debited in the case of Kalpana Agency, it is trite law that for claiming any expenditure, the onus is always on the assessee to prove with credible evidence than the expenditure is genuine 4 ITA No.128/PUN/2016 A.Y.2007-08 and it is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee. In the case of the appellant, even in the present proceedings, no supporting evidence was produced to prove the genuineness of expenditure of Rs.1,39,999/- debited in the case of M/s. Kalpana Agency. The case law relied upon by the appellant i.e. decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. Ganpati Enterprises Ltd. is also not of much assistance to the appellant because the decisions pertains to the case of a company whereas the case on hand is a proprietary concern, where possibility of debiting same expenses twice cannot be ruled out when the appellant is the proprietor of two concerns and the business is carried out from the same premises. In such circumstances and in the absence of any evidence produced by the appellant in support of the sources of capital and the expenditure debited to the accounts, the addition of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of unexplained capital introduced and addition of Rs.1,00,000/- (including net profit of Rs.51,896/- shown by the appellant in the P & L' a/c of Kalpana Agencies) on account of disallowance of expenditure made by the Assessing Officer cannot be said to be unjustified. Accordingly, the aggregate addition of Rs.3,00,000/-made on this ground is affirmed. Ground of appeal No.4 thus, fails.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1