ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

bogus expenses amounting to Rs.89,79,588/- under the head ‘Purchase of stilt and cement’ for the year under consideration, which was added in his hands. The assessee had sought set off with the disclosure already made and also it was contended that the said income offered in respect of purchases was part of business income and infrastructural activities

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

bogus expenses amounting to Rs.89,79,588/- under the head ‘Purchase of stilt and cement’ for the year under consideration, which was added in his hands. The assessee had sought set off with the disclosure already made and also it was contended that the said income offered in respect of purchases was part of business income and infrastructural activities

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

bogus expenses amounting to Rs.89,79,588/- under the head ‘Purchase of stilt and cement’ for the year under consideration, which was added in his hands. The assessee had sought set off with the disclosure already made and also it was contended that the said income offered in respect of purchases was part of business income and infrastructural activities

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

bogus expenses amounting to Rs.89,79,588/- under the head ‘Purchase of stilt and cement’ for the year under consideration, which was added in his hands. The assessee had sought set off with the disclosure already made and also it was contended that the said income offered in respect of purchases was part of business income and infrastructural activities

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, KOLHAPUR vs. VIJAYKUMAR RAJARAM SHAH,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

bogus expenses amounting to Rs.89,79,588/- under the head ‘Purchase of stilt and cement’ for the year under consideration, which was added in his hands. The assessee had sought set off with the disclosure already made and also it was contended that the said income offered in respect of purchases was part of business income and infrastructural activities

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

bogus expenses amounting to Rs.89,79,588/- under the head ‘Purchase of stilt and cement’ for the year under consideration, which was added in his hands. The assessee had sought set off with the disclosure already made and also it was contended that the said income offered in respect of purchases was part of business income and infrastructural activities

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

bogus expenses amounting to Rs.89,79,588/- under the head ‘Purchase of stilt and cement’ for the year under consideration, which was added in his hands. The assessee had sought set off with the disclosure already made and also it was contended that the said income offered in respect of purchases was part of business income and infrastructural activities

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. KALA GENSET PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.346/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-9, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pune. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Kala Genset Pvt. Ltd., 392/1, Vill- Mahalunge, Tal. Khed, Pune-410501. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aaack6784C Revenue By : Shri N. Ashok Babu Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-6, Pune Dated 31.10.2016 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under :- “1. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Excess Remuneration Paid To The Directors Of The Company?” 2. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Was Justified In Allowing The Assessee’S Claim Of Rs. 55,20,630/- Claimed As Deduction U/S 80Ib(5)(I) Of The I.T. Act, 1961, When The Assessee Is Not Involved In Manufacturing Or Producing Activity But Is Only Carrying Out The Activity Of Assembling At Its Silassa Unit?”

purchases of Rs.1,37,66,973/- from bogus suppliers treated as advance made to unknown debtors not for business purpose?” 3. The ground-wise adjudication is given in the following paragraphs of the order. Referring to ground no.1 i.e. excess remuneration paid to the 4. Directors of the company, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order

SHRIKANT ANANTRAO ZORI,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) AURANGABAD , AURANGABAD

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

bogus. Without establishing the letter as\nnon- genuine or without examining the sanctity of the payment made simply\ninvoking the provisions of the Act for making addition is not appropriate for a\nquasi-judicial authority. The revenue should have verified and examined the\ngenuneness of the letter which was produced by the assessee wherein the\nemployer had stated that