I.T.O. WARD -2(2),, NAGPUR vs. SHRI RAMANSINGH BALBIRSINGH SWANNI, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Ito Vs. Ramsingh Balbirsingh Swanni Ward 2(2) Room No. 315, Prop: Industrial Supply Syndicate 3Rd Floor Aayakar Bhawan Bf-2, Amar Vihar, Kamptee Road Telangkhedi Road, Nagpur Civil Lines, Nagpur Pan No.:Aybps 9233 L Appellant Respondent Revenue By :Shri Vitthal M Bhosle Jcit-Dr Assessee By: Shri Abhay Agarwal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 26/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/07/2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Department Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A)-4, Nagpur Dated 17/05/2016 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2009-10 Wherein The Department Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

bogus purchases even if the purchase parties cannot be produced. In all the above cases entire addition on account of bogus

SHETKARI SOLVENT (INDIA) LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT C.C. 1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.137/Nag/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007–08 Shetkari Solvent (India) Ltd., Ug–7&8, Jagat Chambers, Near Ambedkar Sqr, Central Avenue, Bagadganj, Nagpur–440008. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aabcs0105N बनाम / V/S. Acit, Central Circle–1(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Nagpur. Assessee By : Shri Abhay Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Shri U. U. Kasar, Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Nagpur Dated 11.01.2012 For The Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Revised Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :– “1. That The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.5,79,60,000 On Account Of Alleged Bogus Purchases Of Soya Doc

bogus purchases. Accordingly, the theory propounded by the assessee to relate the bogus purchases to the sales and thereby not consider

VGI MARKETING DIVISION,AKOLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, AKOLA

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

bogus purchase of ` 4.26 crore without giving effect of the obvious corollary sale transaction executed. 3. Before us, the learned

SUNRISE STRUCTURALS & ENGINEERING PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4 NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roysunrise Structural & Acit/Dcit, Circle-4, Engineering P. Ltd., A10, Vs Nagpur Hingna Midc, Nagpur (Urban), Nagpur-440016 Pan : Aaccs 3220 M Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2026 O R D E R

bogus purchases from M/s. Dadhichi Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd., proceedings u/s 148A were initiated and notice u/s 148 was issued

M/S SHREE SAIBABA CONSTRUCTION,,NAGPUR vs. CIT-IV,, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

bogus and no-genuine purchases. However, the A.O. has not verified the genuineness of the balance URD purchases of Rs. 4,08,89,2277-As 60% of the purchases

M/S SHREE PALSIDDHA CONSTRUCTION,BULDHANA vs. PRINCIPAL C.I.T. -1,, NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Shree Palsiddha Construction Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Sakharkheda, Nagpur. Taluka Sindhkhedraja, Buldhana-443202. Pan No.: Ablfs 9009 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal (Ca) Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-1, Nagpur Dated 08/03/2017 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2009-10 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Pcit Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S 263 & Thereby Setting Aside Order Passed By Assessing Officer 2. Assessee Craves Leave To Add & Alter Any Other Ground That May Be Taken At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Civil Contractor. Return Of Income Was Filed On 03/12/2009 Declaring Total Income Of 2

purchase as a bogus purchase and brought to tax the gross profit on the said purchase to the taxation. Therefore

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION CIRCLE NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. VIDHARBHA BAHUUDESHIYA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2017-18

bogus purchase / bogus sale transactions with various entities controlled and managed by Shri Rajesh G. Mehta. During the course of recording

ZIM LABORATORIES LIMITED ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

purchased from M/s Real Traders being bogus purchases of capital goods without going into the merits of the case. 3. On the facts

ZIM LABORATORIES LIMITED ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

purchased from M/s Real Traders being bogus purchases of capital goods without going into the merits of the case. 3. On the facts

ZIM LABORATORIES LIMITED ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

purchased from M/s Real Traders being bogus purchases of capital goods without going into the merits of the case. 3. On the facts

SHRI PRANAV NALIN MEHTA ,NAGPUR vs. PR.CIT-1, NAGPUR , NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.28/Nag/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Pranav Nalin Mehta, Pr.Cit-1, Prop. M/S. Regal Marbles & Minerals, Vs. Nagpur 101, 1St Floor, Ramdeobaba Apartment, Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur 440 010 Pan : Acdpm8305P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.P. Dewani Revenue By : Shri Kailash Kanojiya

bogus purchases can be added and not the amount of purchases. Similar view has been canvassed in PCIT Vs. Paramshakti

ZIM LABORATORIES LIMITED ,NAGPUR vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 99/Nag/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Zim Laboratories Ltd. Ground Floor, Sadodaya Gyan, Nelson Square, Opp. Nadt, Nagpur-440 013. Pan : Aaacz0200E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) Nagpur. ……""यथ" / Respondent

bogus purchases and not made any genuine purchases from his company, viz. M/s. Anjaneya Life Care Ltd. It was observed

SUBHASH BADRIPRASAD SHAHU,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(3), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesubhash Badriprasad Shahu, Plot No.84, Near Annapurna Dall Mill, Bagad Ganj, Small Factory Area ……………. Appellant Nagpur 440 008. Maharashtra. Pan – Agqps9660N V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–4(3), Nagpur Assessee By :Shri. Abhay Agrawal.A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

bogus purchases under section 69C of the Act. 4. Whether on the facts and in law, the learned AO erred

M/S. UNIJULES LIFE SCIENCES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.45/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Unijules Life Sciences The Assistant Ltd., V Commissioner Of Income B-35/36, Midc, S Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Kamleshwar, Nagpur. Nagpur – 441501 Pan: Aaacu8032D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kapil Hirani – Adv.-Ar Revenue By Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 27/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Nagpur Under Section 250 Of The Act, Dated 08.11.2011 For The A.Y.2012-13 Emanating From The Order Under Section 153A R.W.S 143(3) Of M/S.Unijule Life Sciences Ltd., [A]

purchases made by the Appellant to that extent as bogus purchases which is illegal and the addition so made deserves

PARSHURAM FORGE PRIVATE LIMITED ,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -1 , NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

purchases cannot be bogus for mere listing of supplier as hawala dealer and purchases cannot be bogus for mere non-appearance

GANGADHAR NAGORAO NIKAM,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE - 1 NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy

bogus purchases and admittedly the A.O. has not disputed the sale made of the alleged bogus purchases. Therefore, to cut–short

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), NAGPUR vs. VIDARBHA INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

purchases (in our case services) cannot be treated as bogus if (a) they are duly supported by bills, (b) all payments

MOHANLAL KALAJII SUTHAR,NAGPUR vs. DY, CIT CIR.1, NAGPUR

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.22/Nag/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mohanlal Kalaji Suthar, The Dy.Cit, Circle-1, Vinayaka Metal Indus, Shop Vs. Nagpur. No.04, Sai Wadi Sankul, Midc T Point, Amravati Road, Wadi, Nagpur – 440023. Pan: Arrps 5022 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri G.J.Ninawe – Dr Date Of Hearing 14/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10/01/2023

bogus purchases of Rs.28,70,544/- sourced from hawala operators. 4. The Revenue at this stage sought to highlight the assessee

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA COAL(INDIA) LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

purchases were bogus. The finding of bogus sale can only lead to the inference that the corresponding amount should be deleted