PRAMOD SHANKARRAO SALUNKHE,,KOLHAPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -2,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 974/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Pramod Shankarrao Salunkhe Flat No.7, Takshak Apartment, E Ward, Nagala Park, Kolhapur-416 003 Pan : Alnps2900F .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Kolhapur. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri J.P Chandrakar

Section 68 and 69C of the I.T Act, 1961”. The said Gujarat High Court‟s decision has been affirmed by the Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP filed by the assessee and accordingly, it was held by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax that the addition on percentage basis on bogus/hawala purchases is not correct

RAHUL CABLES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1168 To 1170/Pun/2017 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 वष"

100% of entire bogus purchase of Rs.3,47,78,546/- constitutes the order erroneous and AO’s failure to conduct investigation to sundry creditors also makes the order erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. However, on debatability of the issue relating to bogus purchases, Ld. DR has nothing to mention

RAHUL CABLES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1168 To 1170/Pun/2017 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 वष"

100% of entire bogus purchase of Rs.3,47,78,546/- constitutes the order erroneous and AO’s failure to conduct investigation to sundry creditors also makes the order erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. However, on debatability of the issue relating to bogus purchases, Ld. DR has nothing to mention

RAHUL CABLES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1168 To 1170/Pun/2017 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 वष"

100% of entire bogus purchase of Rs.3,47,78,546/- constitutes the order erroneous and AO’s failure to conduct investigation to sundry creditors also makes the order erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. However, on debatability of the issue relating to bogus purchases, Ld. DR has nothing to mention

CHETAS CONTROL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

100% addition on such purchases and the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the same. For sake of convenience, we would take facts as appearing in assessment year 2009-10. A.Y.2009-10 3. The facts in this case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and installation engineering goods and filed its return of income

CHETAS CONTROL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

100% addition on such purchases and the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the same. For sake of convenience, we would take facts as appearing in assessment year 2009-10. A.Y.2009-10 3. The facts in this case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and installation engineering goods and filed its return of income

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

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

100 1,50,00,480 1,66,000 10,40,44,752 18. Similarly, for assessment year 2019-20 the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s.143(3) dated 28.03.2024 has adopted the profit @ 5% on the bogus / untested purchases of Rs.17,49,83,488/- wherein M/s. Divya Enterprises Prop. Sagar Suraj Agrawal and M/s. Khushi Traders Prop

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

100 1,50,00,480 1,66,000 10,40,44,752 18. Similarly, for assessment year 2019-20 the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 28.03.2024 has adopted the profit @ 5% on the bogus / untested purchases of Rs.17,49,83,488/- wherein M/s. Divya Enterprises Prop. Sagar Suraj Agrawal and M/s. Khushi Traders

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. ANIL JAIRAM GOEL, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

100% addition made on account of bogus purchases rather than considering only the profit margin on the addition made. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the profit margin to 12.5% by going against the principles of section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. ANIL JAIRAM GOEL, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

100% addition made on account of bogus purchases rather than considering only the profit margin on the addition made. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the profit margin to 12.5% by going against the principles of section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. COOPERATION METALS, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not verified all the relevant issues to determine the correct taxable income and therefore the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We find in the set aside proceedings the Assessing Officer, rejecting the various explanations given

CO-OPERATION METALS,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(3), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not verified all the relevant issues to determine the correct taxable income and therefore the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We find in the set aside proceedings the Assessing Officer, rejecting the various explanations given

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. COOPERATION METALS, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not verified all the relevant issues to determine the correct taxable income and therefore the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We find in the set aside proceedings the Assessing Officer, rejecting the various explanations given

CO-OPERATION METALS,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(3), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not verified all the relevant issues to determine the correct taxable income and therefore the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We find in the set aside proceedings the Assessing Officer, rejecting the various explanations given

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. COOPERATION METALS, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not verified all the relevant issues to determine the correct taxable income and therefore the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We find in the set aside proceedings the Assessing Officer, rejecting the various explanations given

CO-OPERATION METALS,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(3), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not verified all the relevant issues to determine the correct taxable income and therefore the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We find in the set aside proceedings the Assessing Officer, rejecting the various explanations given

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

section 132(4), which delineates that the statement made by the assessee may or may not be used as evidence in the assessment proceedings. The nitty gritty of the matter is that though a statement made u/s 132(4) carries immense weight and works as an evidence, but the same is not conclusive in so far as the legal assertions

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

section 132(4), which delineates that the statement made by the assessee may or may not be used as evidence in the assessment proceedings. The nitty gritty of the matter is that though a statement made u/s 132(4) carries immense weight and works as an evidence, but the same is not conclusive in so far as the legal assertions