ITAT Pune Judgments — June 2019

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs M/S. B.V. BIO CORP LTD., PUNE

ITA 2329/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed3 Jun 2019AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that while the purchases were from a suspicious dealer, the assessee had demonstrated a trail of goods. Therefore, the addition should be restricted to 10% of the bogus purchases over and above the declared Gross Profit.

B.V. BIO-CORP PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

ITA 2221/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: Disposed3 Jun 2019AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that while the purchases were from a suspicious dealer, the assessee had demonstrated a trail of goods. Therefore, the addition should be restricted to 10% of the bogus purchases over and above the declared Gross Profit.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX vs TETRA PAK INDIA PVT. LTD., PUNE

ITA 1856/PUN/2014[2007-08]Status: Disposed3 Jun 2019AY 2007-08Allowed

The Tribunal held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) was barred by limitation as per the proviso to Section 201(3). Therefore, the order was void-ab-initio and quashed.

AMDOCS DEVELOPMENT CENTRE INDIA LLP (SUCCESSOR OF AMDOCS DEVELOPMENT CENTRE INDIA P LTD.),PUNE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

ITA 376/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed3 Jun 2019AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity is invalid and without jurisdiction. Such a defect goes to the root of the matter and cannot be cured by procedural provisions.

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,PUNE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14, PUNE

ITA 2396/PUN/2017[2003-04]Status: Disposed3 Jun 2019AY 2003-04Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for claiming the benefit of set-off of brought forward business losses in the impugned assessment years. The Tribunal reasoned that the claim arose due to a supervening impossibility as the loss was determined after the returns were filed, and the assessee is entitled to raise such claims before appellate authorities.

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,PUNE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14, PUNE

ITA 2397/PUN/2017[2004-05]Status: Disposed3 Jun 2019AY 2004-05Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for claiming the benefit of set-off of brought forward business losses in the impugned assessment years. The Tribunal reasoned that the claim arose due to a supervening impossibility as the loss was determined after the returns were filed, and the assessee is entitled to raise such claims before appellate authorities.

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,PUNE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14, PUNE

ITA 2398/PUN/2017[2005-06]Status: Disposed3 Jun 2019AY 2005-06Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for claiming the benefit of set-off of brought forward business losses in the impugned assessment years. The Tribunal reasoned that the claim arose due to a supervening impossibility as the loss was determined after the returns were filed, and the assessee is entitled to raise such claims before appellate authorities.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs M/S. AMDOCS DEVELOPMENT CENTRE INDIA PVT.LTD, PUNE

ITA 398/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed3 Jun 2019AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity is invalid and without jurisdiction. Such a defect goes to the root of the matter and cannot be cured by procedural provisions.

INCOME TAX OFFICER vs DEEPAK SHANKAR PANASKAR, NASHIK

ITA 203/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed3 Jun 2019AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restricted the addition on bogus purchases to 10% of the alleged amount and upheld the deletion of penalty due to ambiguity in the charge for which it was initiated.

INCOME TAX OFFICER vs DEEPAK SHANKAR PANASKAR, NASHIK

ITA 204/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed3 Jun 2019AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restricted the addition on bogus purchases to 10% of the alleged amount and upheld the deletion of penalty due to ambiguity in the charge for which it was initiated.

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,PUNE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14, PUNE

ITA 2399/PUN/2017[2006-07]Status: Disposed3 Jun 2019AY 2006-07Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for claiming the benefit of set-off of brought forward business losses in the impugned assessment years. The Tribunal reasoned that the claim arose due to a supervening impossibility as the loss was determined after the returns were filed, and the assessee is entitled to raise such claims before appellate authorities.