SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

bogus bills and offering equal amount for taxation, the same cannot be retracted as it constitutes `evidence’. In order to appreciate this contention, let us have a look at the mandate of sub-section (4) of section 132 which provides that : `The authorised officer may, during the course of 8 Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad the search or seizure, examine on oath

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

bogus bills and offering equal amount for taxation, the same cannot be retracted as it constitutes `evidence’. In order to appreciate this contention, let us have a look at the mandate of sub-section (4) of section 132 which provides that : `The authorised officer may, during the course of 8 Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad the search or seizure, examine on oath

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

bogus bills and offering equal amount for taxation, the same cannot be retracted as it constitutes `evidence’. In order to appreciate this contention, let us have a look at the mandate of sub-section (4) of section 132 which provides that : `The authorised officer may, during the course of 8 Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad the search or seizure, examine on oath

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

bogus bills and offering equal amount for taxation, the same cannot be retracted as it constitutes `evidence’. In order to appreciate this contention, let us have a look at the mandate of sub-section (4) of section 132 which provides that : `The authorised officer may, during the course of 8 Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad the search or seizure, examine on oath

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

bogus bills and offering equal amount for taxation, the same cannot be retracted as it constitutes `evidence’. In order to appreciate this contention, let us have a look at the mandate of sub-section (4) of section 132 which provides that : `The authorised officer may, during the course of 8 Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad the search or seizure, examine on oath

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

bogus bills and offering equal amount for taxation, the same cannot be retracted as it constitutes `evidence’. In order to appreciate this contention, let us have a look at the mandate of sub-section (4) of section 132 which provides that : `The authorised officer may, during the course of 8 Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad the search or seizure, examine on oath

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

bogus bills and offering equal amount for taxation, the same cannot be retracted as it constitutes `evidence’. In order to appreciate this contention, let us have a look at the mandate of sub-section (4) of section 132 which provides that : `The authorised officer may, during the course of 8 Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad the search or seizure, examine on oath

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

bogus bills and offering equal amount for taxation, the same cannot be retracted as it constitutes `evidence’. In order to appreciate this contention, let us have a look at the mandate of sub-section (4) of section 132 which provides that : `The authorised officer may, during the course of 8 Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad the search or seizure, examine on oath

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

bogus bills and offering equal amount for taxation, the same cannot be retracted as it constitutes `evidence’. In order to appreciate this contention, let us have a look at the mandate of sub-section (4) of section 132 which provides that : `The authorised officer may, during the course of 8 Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad the search or seizure, examine on oath

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

bogus bills and offering equal amount for taxation, the same cannot be retracted as it constitutes `evidence’. In order to appreciate this contention, let us have a look at the mandate of sub-section (4) of section 132 which provides that : `The authorised officer may, during the course of 8 Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad the search or seizure, examine on oath

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

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

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 on 26.12.2020 declaring total income of\nRs.19,48,06,480/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 (hereinafter

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

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 on 26.12.2020 declaring total income of Rs.19,48,06,480/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

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. 5] The learned Pr. CIT erred in not appreciating that the learned A.O. had completed the asst. after due application of mind and verification of all the issues relating to URD purchases made by the assessee company and therefore, there was no reason to revise the asst. order on the ground that there was complete lack of application

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. 5] The learned Pr. CIT erred in not appreciating that the learned A.O. had completed the asst. after due application of mind and verification of all the issues relating to URD purchases made by the assessee company and therefore, there was no reason to revise the asst. order on the ground that there was complete lack of application

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. 5] The learned Pr. CIT erred in not appreciating that the learned A.O. had completed the asst. after due application of mind and verification of all the issues relating to URD purchases made by the assessee company and therefore, there was no reason to revise the asst. order on the ground that there was complete lack of application

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. 5] The learned Pr. CIT erred in not appreciating that the learned A.O. had completed the asst. after due application of mind and verification of all the issues relating to URD purchases made by the assessee company and therefore, there was no reason to revise the asst. order on the ground that there was complete lack of application

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. 5] The learned Pr. CIT erred in not appreciating that the learned A.O. had completed the asst. after due application of mind and verification of all the issues relating to URD purchases made by the assessee company and therefore, there was no reason to revise the asst. order on the ground that there was complete lack of application

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. 5] The learned Pr. CIT erred in not appreciating that the learned A.O. had completed the asst. after due application of mind and verification of all the issues relating to URD purchases made by the assessee company and therefore, there was no reason to revise the asst. order on the ground that there was complete lack of application

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. 5] The learned Pr. CIT erred in not appreciating that the learned A.O. had completed the asst. after due application of mind and verification of all the issues relating to URD purchases made by the assessee company and therefore, there was no reason to revise the asst. order on the ground that there was complete lack of application