ITAT Pune Judgments — September 2019

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had no jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal without deciding on merits, even in an ex-parte order. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, granting an opportunity to the assessee to present their case.

The Tribunal held that excess cane price paid to suppliers should be remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication as per Supreme Court guidelines. Regarding advance lease rent, the Tribunal found that it could not be treated as income in the given circumstances and set aside the addition.

The Tribunal held that excess cane price paid to suppliers should be remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication as per Supreme Court guidelines. Regarding advance lease rent, the Tribunal found that it could not be treated as income in the given circumstances and set aside the addition.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has no jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal without deciding on merits, even if ex-parte. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has no jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal without deciding on merits, even in an ex-parte order. In the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity.

The Tribunal held that excess cane price paid to suppliers should be remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication as per Supreme Court guidelines. Regarding advance lease rent, the Tribunal found that it could not be treated as income in the given circumstances and set aside the addition.

The Tribunal held that excess cane price paid to suppliers should be remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication as per Supreme Court guidelines. Regarding advance lease rent, the Tribunal found that it could not be treated as income in the given circumstances and set aside the addition.

The Tribunal held that excess cane price paid to suppliers should be remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication as per Supreme Court guidelines. Regarding advance lease rent, the Tribunal found that it could not be treated as income in the given circumstances and set aside the addition.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal without deciding the issues on merits, even in an ex-parte order. Therefore, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal held that excess cane price paid to suppliers should be remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication as per Supreme Court guidelines. Regarding advance lease rent, the Tribunal found that it could not be treated as income in the given circumstances and set aside the addition.

The Tribunal, following its own precedent and the ratio laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in similar cases, set aside the impugned orders. The matter was remitted to the AO for recomputation of additions, considering the gross profit rate on genuine and hawala purchases, or estimating at 10% plus normal GP rate if goods were consumed in manufacturing.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s adjudication was not satisfactory due to the assessee's absence and the reliance solely on written submissions. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication to ensure principles of natural justice are followed.

The Tribunal, following a Supreme Court judgment, held that the issue of excess sugarcane price paid needs to be re-examined by the AO. The AO must differentiate between deductible expenditure and appropriation of profit, especially concerning payments to members.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum of disallowance was remitted to the Assessing Officer, the penalty proceedings should also be restored to the Assessing Officer to be decided in conformity with the fresh decision on the quantum.

The Tribunal, following its own precedent and the ratio laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in similar cases, set aside the impugned orders. The matter was remitted to the AO for recomputation of additions, considering the gross profit rate on genuine and hawala purchases, or estimating at 10% plus normal GP rate if goods were consumed in manufacturing.

The Tribunal, following its previous orders and the ratio laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in similar cases, set aside the impugned orders. The matter was remitted to the AO for recomputation of additions after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s adjudication suffered due to the assessee's absence and the reliance solely on written submissions. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication following principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum of disallowance was remitted to the Assessing Officer, the penalty proceedings should also be restored to the Assessing Officer to be decided in conformity with the fresh decision on the quantum.

The Tribunal decided that additions on account of bogus purchases should not be at 100% of the purchase value. Instead, the additions should be sustained at a rate of 10% plus the normal Gross Profit (GP) rate shown by the assessee, or at the differential rate of profit between genuine and bogus purchases, as per High Court judgments.

The Tribunal decided that additions on account of bogus purchases should not be at 100% of the purchase value. Instead, the additions should be sustained at a rate of 10% plus the normal Gross Profit (GP) rate shown by the assessee, or at the differential rate of profit between genuine and bogus purchases, as per High Court judgments.

The Tribunal decided that additions on account of bogus purchases should not be at 100% of the purchase value. Instead, the additions should be sustained at a rate of 10% plus the normal Gross Profit (GP) rate shown by the assessee, or at the differential rate of profit between genuine and bogus purchases, as per High Court judgments.

The Tribunal decided that additions on account of bogus purchases should not be at 100% of the purchase value. Instead, the additions should be sustained at a rate of 10% plus the normal Gross Profit (GP) rate shown by the assessee, or at the differential rate of profit between genuine and bogus purchases, as per High Court judgments.

The Tribunal decided that additions on account of bogus purchases should not be at 100% of the purchase value. Instead, the additions should be sustained at a rate of 10% plus the normal Gross Profit (GP) rate shown by the assessee, or at the differential rate of profit between genuine and bogus purchases, as per High Court judgments.

The Tribunal decided that additions on account of bogus purchases should not be at 100% of the purchase value. Instead, the additions should be sustained at a rate of 10% plus the normal Gross Profit (GP) rate shown by the assessee, or at the differential rate of profit between genuine and bogus purchases, as per High Court judgments.

The Tribunal decided that additions on account of bogus purchases should not be at 100% of the purchase value. Instead, the additions should be sustained at a rate of 10% plus the normal Gross Profit (GP) rate shown by the assessee, or at the differential rate of profit between genuine and bogus purchases, as per High Court judgments.

The Tribunal decided that additions on account of bogus purchases should not be at 100% of the purchase value. Instead, the additions should be sustained at a rate of 10% plus the normal Gross Profit (GP) rate shown by the assessee, or at the differential rate of profit between genuine and bogus purchases, as per High Court judgments.

The Tribunal decided that additions on account of bogus purchases should not be at 100% of the purchase value. Instead, the additions should be sustained at a rate of 10% plus the normal Gross Profit (GP) rate shown by the assessee, or at the differential rate of profit between genuine and bogus purchases, as per High Court judgments.

The Tribunal decided that additions on account of bogus purchases should not be at 100% of the purchase value. Instead, the additions should be sustained at a rate of 10% plus the normal Gross Profit (GP) rate shown by the assessee, or at the differential rate of profit between genuine and bogus purchases, as per High Court judgments.

The Tribunal decided that additions on account of bogus purchases should not be at 100% of the purchase value. Instead, the additions should be sustained at a rate of 10% plus the normal Gross Profit (GP) rate shown by the assessee, or at the differential rate of profit between genuine and bogus purchases, as per High Court judgments.

The Tribunal decided that additions on account of bogus purchases should not be at 100% of the purchase value. Instead, the additions should be sustained at a rate of 10% plus the normal Gross Profit (GP) rate shown by the assessee, or at the differential rate of profit between genuine and bogus purchases, as per High Court judgments.

The Tribunal decided that additions on account of bogus purchases should not be at 100% of the purchase value. Instead, the additions should be sustained at a rate of 10% plus the normal Gross Profit (GP) rate shown by the assessee, or at the differential rate of profit between genuine and bogus purchases, as per High Court judgments.

The Tribunal decided that additions on account of bogus purchases should not be at 100% of the purchase value. Instead, the additions should be sustained at a rate of 10% plus the normal Gross Profit (GP) rate shown by the assessee, or at the differential rate of profit between genuine and bogus purchases, as per High Court judgments.

The Tribunal decided that additions on account of bogus purchases should not be at 100% of the purchase value. Instead, the additions should be sustained at a rate of 10% plus the normal Gross Profit (GP) rate shown by the assessee, or at the differential rate of profit between genuine and bogus purchases, as per High Court judgments.

The Tribunal decided that additions on account of bogus purchases should not be at 100% of the purchase value. Instead, the additions should be sustained at a rate of 10% plus the normal Gross Profit (GP) rate shown by the assessee, or at the differential rate of profit between genuine and bogus purchases, as per High Court judgments.

The Tribunal decided that additions on account of bogus purchases should not be at 100% of the purchase value. Instead, the additions should be sustained at a rate of 10% plus the normal Gross Profit (GP) rate shown by the assessee, or at the differential rate of profit between genuine and bogus purchases, as per High Court judgments.

The Tribunal decided that additions on account of bogus purchases should not be at 100% of the purchase value. Instead, the additions should be sustained at a rate of 10% plus the normal Gross Profit (GP) rate shown by the assessee, or at the differential rate of profit between genuine and bogus purchases, as per High Court judgments.

The Tribunal decided that additions on account of bogus purchases should not be at 100% of the purchase value. Instead, the additions should be sustained at a rate of 10% plus the normal Gross Profit (GP) rate shown by the assessee, or at the differential rate of profit between genuine and bogus purchases, as per High Court judgments.

The Tribunal decided that additions on account of bogus purchases should not be at 100% of the purchase value. Instead, the additions should be sustained at a rate of 10% plus the normal Gross Profit (GP) rate shown by the assessee, or at the differential rate of profit between genuine and bogus purchases, as per High Court judgments.

The Tribunal decided that additions on account of bogus purchases should not be at 100% of the purchase value. Instead, the additions should be sustained at a rate of 10% plus the normal Gross Profit (GP) rate shown by the assessee, or at the differential rate of profit between genuine and bogus purchases, as per High Court judgments.

The Tribunal decided that additions on account of bogus purchases should not be at 100% of the purchase value. Instead, the additions should be sustained at a rate of 10% plus the normal Gross Profit (GP) rate shown by the assessee, or at the differential rate of profit between genuine and bogus purchases, as per High Court judgments.

The Tribunal decided that additions on account of bogus purchases should not be at 100% of the purchase value. Instead, the additions should be sustained at a rate of 10% plus the normal Gross Profit (GP) rate shown by the assessee, or at the differential rate of profit between genuine and bogus purchases, as per High Court judgments.

The Tribunal decided that additions on account of bogus purchases should not be at 100% of the purchase value. Instead, the additions should be sustained at a rate of 10% plus the normal Gross Profit (GP) rate shown by the assessee, or at the differential rate of profit between genuine and bogus purchases, as per High Court judgments.

The Tribunal decided that additions on account of bogus purchases should not be at 100% of the purchase value. Instead, the additions should be sustained at a rate of 10% plus the normal Gross Profit (GP) rate shown by the assessee, or at the differential rate of profit between genuine and bogus purchases, as per High Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that additions on account of bogus purchases should not be at 100% of the purchase value. Instead, it should be at a differential rate of profit, considering the normal Gross Profit (GP) rate of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that additions on account of bogus purchases should not be 100% of the purchase amount. Instead, it should be sustained at a rate of 10% plus the normal Gross Profit (GP) rate shown by the assessee, or at the differential rate of profit between genuine and bogus purchases, as per High Court judgments.

The Tribunal decided that additions on account of bogus purchases should not be at 100% of the purchase value. Instead, the additions should be sustained at a rate of 10% plus the normal Gross Profit (GP) rate shown by the assessee, or at the differential rate of profit between genuine and bogus purchases, as per High Court judgments.

The Tribunal decided that additions on account of bogus purchases should not be at 100% of the purchase value. Instead, the additions should be sustained at a rate of 10% plus the normal Gross Profit (GP) rate shown by the assessee, or at the differential rate of profit between genuine and bogus purchases, as per High Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that the appeal by the Revenue was to be dismissed on account of low tax effect, as it fell below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars. The decision was made without going into the merits of the issues raised.

The Tribunal held that additions on account of bogus purchases should not be 100% of the purchase amount. Instead, it should be at a rate of 10% plus the normal Gross Profit (GP) rate shown by the assessee, or the differential profit rate between genuine and bogus purchases, as per High Court judgments.

The Tribunal decided that additions on account of bogus purchases should not be at 100% of the purchase value. Instead, the additions should be sustained at a rate of 10% plus the normal Gross Profit (GP) rate shown by the assessee, or at the differential rate of profit between genuine and bogus purchases, as per High Court judgments.