ITAT Pune Judgments — September 2019

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 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.

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 allowed the deduction under Section 54F, holding that the utilization of capital gains for purchase of property before the due date was sufficient, even without physical possession or registered sale deed. The addition on account of deemed dividend was deleted as no loan or advance was given. The matter concerning ITS data was remanded.

The Tribunal noted a contradiction between the assessee's audit report and the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the accounting method. It also acknowledged the possibility of the income being offered to tax in subsequent years.

The Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 54F, holding that the utilization of capital gains for purchase of property before the due date was sufficient, even without physical possession or registered sale deed. The addition on account of deemed dividend was deleted as no loan or advance was given. The matter concerning ITS data was remanded.

The Tribunal decided to remand the issues raised in the appeals to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. This decision was based on a previous order by a co-ordinate bench for a different assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the cash shortage could be considered as having been used for purchasing the excess stock of jewellery, as there was no evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the addition on account of cash shortage was deleted.

The Tribunal held that recognition from DS&IR is sufficient for claiming deduction under Section 35(2AB), relying on a Delhi High Court judgment. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit of Rs. 50 Lakhs prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on account of low tax effect, without going into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to present their case and evidence. This decision was made in the interest of justice, with no objection from the Revenue.

The Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 54F, holding that the utilization of capital gains for purchase of property before the due date was sufficient, even without physical possession or registered sale deed. The addition on account of deemed dividend was deleted as no loan or advance was given. The matter concerning ITS data was remanded.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was set aside by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, rendering the appeal infructuous. The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal decided to remand the issues raised in the appeals to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. This decision was based on a previous order by a co-ordinate bench for a different assessment year.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal without going into the merits of the case. This was based on the fact that the tax effect involved was below the enhanced monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal decided to remand the issues raised in the appeals to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. This decision was based on a previous order by a co-ordinate bench for a different assessment year.

The Tribunal held that restricting disallowance at an ad-hoc rate is not approved. Additions should be restricted to the difference between the gross profit rate on genuine and bogus purchases.

The Tribunal held that restricting disallowance on bogus purchases at an ad-hoc rate is not approved. The addition should be restricted to the difference between the gross profit rate on genuine and hawala purchases.

The Tribunal held that the grounds raised by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the issue properly as the assessee was not heard personally. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication following principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation to be fair and reasonable after reviewing bank statements and other documents. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the issue back for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after hearing the assessee, adhering to principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that restricting disallowance on bogus purchases at an ad-hoc rate is not approved. The addition should be restricted to the difference between the gross profit rate on genuine and hawala purchases.

The Tribunal held that cooperative credit societies are distinct from cooperative banks and are entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal found that the definition of 'members' under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, includes associate members, making the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen Co-operative Society inapplicable.

The Tribunal held that cooperative credit societies are distinct from cooperative banks and are entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal found that the definition of 'members' under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, includes associate members, making the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen Co-operative Society inapplicable.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect as per the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a cooperative credit society, is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal distinguished the assessee's case from the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd., finding it not applicable.

The Tribunal held that restricting disallowance at an ad-hoc rate is not approved. Additions should be restricted to the difference between the gross profit rate on genuine and bogus purchases.

The Tribunal held that the grounds raised by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that cooperative credit societies are distinct from cooperative banks and are entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal found that the definition of 'members' under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, includes associate members, making the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen Co-operative Society inapplicable.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect as per the CBDT Circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that cooperative credit societies are distinct from cooperative banks and are entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal found that the definition of 'members' under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, includes associate members, making the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen Co-operative Society inapplicable.

The Tribunal held that education cess is an allowable expenditure. It also ruled that provisions for warranty and administrative service charges are allowable as business expenditure, reversing the lower authorities' decisions.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal solely on the grounds of low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Revenue can seek restoration if exceptions in the circular apply.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal without going into the merits of the case. This decision was based on the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim all business expenditures, including depreciation and carry forward of business loss. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that education cess is an allowable expenditure. It also ruled that provisions for warranty and administrative service charges are allowable as business expenditure, reversing the lower authorities' decisions.

The Tribunal held that education cess is an allowable expenditure. It also ruled that provisions for warranty and administrative service charges are allowable as business expenditure, reversing the lower authorities' decisions.

The Tribunal held that the compensation received for the termination of an agreement to purchase TDR, which was considered a capital asset in the hands of the assessee, is a capital receipt. The Assessing Officer's addition was therefore not justified.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and admitted the additional evidence. The Tribunal decided to remand all the grounds, including additional grounds, to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the grounds of low tax effect. The assessee's cross-objection regarding deduction for education cess was allowed based on a High Court judgment.