ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11, PUNE vs. M/S. HIRSCHVOGEL COMPONENTS INDIA PVT.LTD, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2285/PUN/2017Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 June 2021AY 2011-126 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) did not provide specific findings on the assessee's submissions regarding an excess provision for consumables. The Tribunal noted that the issue required factual verification and detailed examination.

What were the facts?

The assessee company, engaged in manufacturing, showed a high material consumption ratio and a gross loss in the assessment year 2011-12. The Assessing Officer made an addition on account of high material consumption, which was deleted by the CIT(Appeals).

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of high material consumption was justified, and if the CIT(Appeals) properly adjudicated the issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S.SYAL, VP & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Kishore Phadke
For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Hearing: 28.06.2021Pronounced: 29.06.2021

आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // धनजी सधचव / Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.

Date 1 Draft dictated on 28.06.2021 Sr.PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 28.06.2021 Sr.PS/PS 3 Draft proposed and placed JM/AM before the second Member 4 Draft discussed/approved by AM/JM second Member 5 Approved draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of order Sr.PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr.PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R 11 Date of dispatch of order

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →