CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

bogus purchases. 2] The learned Pr. CIT failed to appreciate that the asst. order passed by the learned A.O. was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and hence, the revision order passed u/s 263

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

bogus purchases. 2] The learned Pr. CIT failed to appreciate that the asst. order passed by the learned A.O. was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and hence, the revision order passed u/s 263

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

bogus purchases. 2] The learned Pr. CIT failed to appreciate that the asst. order passed by the learned A.O. was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and hence, the revision order passed u/s 263

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

bogus purchases. 2] The learned Pr. CIT failed to appreciate that the asst. order passed by the learned A.O. was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and hence, the revision order passed u/s 263

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

bogus purchases. 2] The learned Pr. CIT failed to appreciate that the asst. order passed by the learned A.O. was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and hence, the revision order passed u/s 263

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

bogus purchases. 2] The learned Pr. CIT failed to appreciate that the asst. order passed by the learned A.O. was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and hence, the revision order passed u/s 263

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

bogus purchases. 2] The learned Pr. CIT failed to appreciate that the asst. order passed by the learned A.O. was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and hence, the revision order passed u/s 263

MAHARASHTRA ENGINEERING ,,KOLHAPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -1,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Anil Chaturvedi

bogus purchases goes against the principles of section 68 of the Act. It was the submission that since the assessee did not get adequate time, he was unable to respond to the show cause notice by 27-3-2018 but the assessee had responded on 30-3-2018 with all the details as called for by the learned

M/S. CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND CO,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

bogus purchases in form of purchases from Unregistered Dealers (in short „URD). The Assessing Officer at para 6.1 of his order had issued summons u/s 131 of the Act to Principal Officers of Chandukaka Saraf & Company to attend and provide the details such as name, address, PAN, quanity and amount for gold purchased from the Unregistered Dealers. The Authorized representative

SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, , NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1183/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sidharth Ratanlal Bafna, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, 96, Nayantara, Subhash Nashik. Chowk, Jalgaon-425001. Pan : Algpb5972R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sunil Ganoo Revenue By : Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Nagpur (‘The Pcit’) Dated 08.06.2018 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Pr.Cit Has Grossly Erred In Exercising His Revisional Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act 1961. The Impugned Revisional Order Passed By The Learned Pr.Cit Is Patently Illegal., Void Ab Initio, Bad In Law, Arbitrary, Perverse, Without Jurisdiction & Being Devoid Of Merits The Same May Please Be Deleted. 2. Since The Learned Pr.Cit Has Failed To Revise The Directions Given By The Learned J.C.I.T. Nashik To The Learned Assessing Officer In The Matter Of Framing The Impugned Assessment Order U/S 143[3] R.W.S.L53A

u/s 263 of the Act on 24.05.2018 calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why the assessment order should not be set-aside to the Assessing Officer. In response to the show-cause notice, it is submitted that the transaction of purchase and sale of shares of penny stock script of M/s. S.V. Electricals Ltd. were furnished during

M/S KUTE SONS DAIRYS LTD.,SATARA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -3,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.410/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Kute Sons Dairys Ltd., Vs. Pcit-3, Pune. S.No.406/407, At Nimbhore, Post Surwadi, Taluka Phaltan, Satara- 415523. Pan : Aabck0391C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri N. K. Rander Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.05.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Pune (‘The Pcit’) Dated 30.03.2022 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Erred In Initiating Proceedings U/S.263 & Passing The Order Without Proper Jurisdiction. Appellant Prays To Declare Proceedings & Order Bad In Law.

purchased which is accepted by Assessing Officer after full application of mind. Therefore, appellant prays to cancel the Pr. CIT’s Order on the issue. 4. Pr. Commissioner has erred in setting aside case for applicability of Section 41(1). Appellant prays to cancel the Pr. CIT’s Order on the issue. 5. Appellant prays to add, alter, amend, modify

DATTATRAY HANMANTRAO DESAI,KARAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

bogus purchases over and above rate of gross profit of 4.63 per cent declared by assessee and passed assessment order, since assessee had produced all necessary details of purchase, sales, audited books of account, quantity details and there was no discrepancy between purchase and sales declined, Assessing Officer had taken one possible view out of two assumption and thus

MR. GAURAV RAJENDRA MALU,JAYSINGPUR vs. PCIT, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1206/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18

bogus long term capital gain availed through a penny stock company namely Greencrest Financial Services Private Limited. Ld. AO observed that the assessee has also dealt in the very same scrip and has earned capital gain thereon. Accordingly, notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued followed by validly serving of notices u/s.143(2) of the Act. Assessee raised objections against

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

purchaser, therefore, the transaction was not undertaken at arm‟s length. C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 (iv) The Hon‟ble High Court of Republic Singapore had not determined the actual sale consideration and the whole transaction is premeditate, is dubious transactions entered into with the intention of claiming loss for availing the benefit of losses and proceeded to apply the ratio

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

purchaser, therefore, the transaction was not undertaken at arm‟s length. C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 (iv) The Hon‟ble High Court of Republic Singapore had not determined the actual sale consideration and the whole transaction is premeditate, is dubious transactions entered into with the intention of claiming loss for availing the benefit of losses and proceeded to apply the ratio

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

bogus\ncompanies?\nAns: The accommodation entries by way of unsecured loans were taken to\npurchase properties. I did not have the amounts in the bank accounts but\nhad the cash. Therefore to purchase the properties, I had to do this\nexercise.\n6\nITA No.1178/PUN/2023\nITA No.2017/PUN/2024\nThe return of income for AY 2011-12 filed on 29/09/2011 by the assessee

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

bogus\ncompanies?\nAns: The accommodation entries by way of unsecured loans were taken to\npurchase properties. I did not have the amounts in the bank accounts but\nhad the cash. Therefore to purchase the properties, I had to do this\nexercise.\n6\nITA No.1178/PUN/2023\nITA No.2017/PUN/2024\nThe return of income for AY 2011-12 filed on 29/09/2011 by the assessee

POONAM AGARWAL,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -4, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

263 of the ITA, 1961. The learned PCIT-4, Pune ought to have appreciated that Explanation-2 was inserted w.e.f. 01/06/2015, and the same was not applicable to AY 2015-16. 2. The learned PCIT-4, Pune erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that all the details/ information relating to the transaction of purchase/ sale