DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, AURANGABAD vs. METAROLLS ISPAT PVT. LTD, JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

addition of Rs.11,70,03,386/- made by the\nAssessing Officer on account of bogus purchases.\n4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in\nbusiness of manufacturing of steel products such as MS Billets & TMT Bars. It\nfiled its return of income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. METAROLLS ISPAT PVT. LTD., JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

addition of Rs.11,70,03,386/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in business of manufacturing of steel products such as MS Billets & TMT Bars. It filed its return of income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. RATHI STEEL AND METAL PVT. LTD, JALNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Dcit, Aurangabad Rathi Steel & Metal Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.F12, Addl Midc Area, Phase-Ii, Vs. Jalna – 431203 Pan : Aabcr5546A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anand Partani Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - Cit Date Of Hearing : 01-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

addition of entire amount of bogus purchases from hawala operators in hands of assessee was justified due to failure of assessee to prove said purchases. 10. So far as the deletion of Rs.17,42,770/- is concerned, he relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. 11. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand strongly relied

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SATARA vs. KAY BOUVET ENGINEERING LIMITED, SATARA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and both the COs filed\nby the assessee are dismissed

income @ 2% on alleged bogus purchases, which were claimed to be from non-existent entities. The assessee had filed supporting documents for these purchases.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

bogus or mere accommodation entries received from shell companies based at Kolkata. Thus, the conditions precedent for purpose of making addition u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A does not stand satisfied in the present case. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition of Rs.13,27,54,925/- being the unsecured loans as unexplained income in the assessment

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. TAPARIA TOOLS LIMITED, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1337/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). CO No.30/PUN/2025 Taparia Tools Limited 2. Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹87,64,74,079/- made by the AO on account of bogus purchases

M/S SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT. LTD. ,PUNE vs. DY CIT , CIRCLE- 5 , PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1864 To 1868/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa (Bk), Pune- 411048. Pan : Aaccs3670F Appellant Respondent

bogus purchases on the basis of details/documents furnished by the assessee company and made an addition of Rs.2,03,116/-. Therefore, on following the direction of the Hon’ble ITAT, the Ld. AO had passed the fresh assessment order on 28.02.2024 and subsequently initiated the fresh penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Subsequently, the penalty

M/S SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT , CIRCLE- 5, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1864 To 1868/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa (Bk), Pune- 411048. Pan : Aaccs3670F Appellant Respondent

bogus purchases on the basis of details/documents furnished by the assessee company and made an addition of Rs.2,03,116/-. Therefore, on following the direction of the Hon’ble ITAT, the Ld. AO had passed the fresh assessment order on 28.02.2024 and subsequently initiated the fresh penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Subsequently, the penalty

M/S SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT , CIRCLE- 5, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1864 To 1868/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa (Bk), Pune- 411048. Pan : Aaccs3670F Appellant Respondent

bogus purchases on the basis of details/documents furnished by the assessee company and made an addition of Rs.2,03,116/-. Therefore, on following the direction of the Hon’ble ITAT, the Ld. AO had passed the fresh assessment order on 28.02.2024 and subsequently initiated the fresh penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Subsequently, the penalty

M/S SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT , CIRCLE- 5, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1864 To 1868/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa (Bk), Pune- 411048. Pan : Aaccs3670F Appellant Respondent

bogus purchases on the basis of details/documents furnished by the assessee company and made an addition of Rs.2,03,116/-. Therefore, on following the direction of the Hon’ble ITAT, the Ld. AO had passed the fresh assessment order on 28.02.2024 and subsequently initiated the fresh penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Subsequently, the penalty

M/S SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT , CIRCLE- 5, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1864 To 1868/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa (Bk), Pune- 411048. Pan : Aaccs3670F Appellant Respondent

bogus purchases on the basis of details/documents furnished by the assessee company and made an addition of Rs.2,03,116/-. Therefore, on following the direction of the Hon’ble ITAT, the Ld. AO had passed the fresh assessment order on 28.02.2024 and subsequently initiated the fresh penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Subsequently, the penalty

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHAPUR vs. NATHMAL RUPCHAND JAIN, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

additional profit of Rs.1,30,478/- by recording as under: “In view of the categorical statement of Sri Ankit Jain Prop. Rishabh Trading Company that the assessee has shown bogus purchases and considering the fact that the assessee has not furnished the cash book, invoices of sales, and other details the correctness of the accounts of the assessee

SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1184/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH, ‘A’ PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1184/PUN/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Serum Institute of India Ltd., Vs. DCIT, 212/2, Hadapsar, Central Circle-1(1), Pune 411 028 Pune PAN : AABCS4225M Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Eugene Waradkar Revenue

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,SATARA CIRCLE,SATARA, SATARA vs. KAY BOUVET ENGINEERING LIMITED, SATARA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and both the COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

purchases is also bogus and the assessee would have earned only commission for providing such false entries in its books of account. He, therefore, added an amount of Rs.3,60,11,804/- being the commission @ 2% on such bogus sales amounting to Rs.1,80,05,90,205/- as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act. 7. Before

DCIT-CIRCLE 7 PUNE, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK PUNE vs. TRIO CHEMSUCROTECH ENG. PROJECTS PVT. LTD, PUNE

purchases, bogus expenditure shown on civil works and bogus payment of commission. Hence the claim of this bogus expenditure is disallowed and accordingly an addition of Rs.24,23,92,146/ is made to the total income

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE, PUNE vs. SHREE CHANAKYA EDUCATION SOCIETY, AUNDH ,PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

addition in the hands of the assessee treating the purchases as bogus and that too u/s 68 of the Act. 26. We further find merit in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that when the assessee is registered u/s 12A and its application of income

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE, PUNE vs. SHREE CHANAKYA EDUCATION SOCIETY, AUNDH, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

addition in the hands of the assessee treating the purchases as bogus and that too u/s 68 of the Act. 26. We further find merit in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that when the assessee is registered u/s 12A and its application of income

ELLORA ISPAT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(4), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1497/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2009-10

Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The issues raised in the cross appeals revolves around the addition for bogus purchases at ₹31,45,803 made