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

bogus purchases from various entities in respect of the assessee company. In the appraisal report names of 19 parties were mentioned. Notices u/s 133(6) of the Act were issued to these parties and the purchases were confirmed by the parties except OM Traders, Sunny Traders and Krypton Scrap Works Pvt. Ltd. It was further mentioned that information was also

SMT. SUMANDEVI DINESHKUMAR TULSYAN,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5),, NASHIK

purchased bogus long term capital gain through the sale of scrip of\nM/s Mishka and disclosed an amount of Rs.1,00,97,902/- in his hands and\nRs.99,63,145/- in the hands of his wife on account of bogus Long Term Capital\nGains for assessment year 2014-15. However, vide letter dated 04.09.2015 the\nassessee retracted from his earlier

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

Section 145(3) of the Act for rejection of books of account the AO has to prove that there are specific defects in the books of account and the profits cannot be deduced for the method of consistently employed by the assessee. However as mentioned above the AO has brought about the specific defect that the appellant has recorded bogus

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

11,804/- u/s 68 of the Act being commission @ 2% of the bogus sales amounting to Rs.180,05,90,205/- on the ground that the assessee had shown false entries of purchases made from non-existing entities. Therefore, the assessee’s claim of sales out of such purchases is also bogus and the assessee would have earned only the commission

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

section 271(1)(c) were not attracted to the facts of the case. 5. The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 6. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any of the above Grounds of Appeal or to add new Grounds of Appeal during the course of appeal proceedings.” 5. Facts of the case

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

section 271(1)(c) were not attracted to the facts of the case. 5. The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 6. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any of the above Grounds of Appeal or to add new Grounds of Appeal during the course of appeal proceedings.” 5. Facts of the case

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

section 271(1)(c) were not attracted to the facts of the case. 5. The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 6. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any of the above Grounds of Appeal or to add new Grounds of Appeal during the course of appeal proceedings.” 5. Facts of the case

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

section 271(1)(c) were not attracted to the facts of the case. 5. The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 6. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any of the above Grounds of Appeal or to add new Grounds of Appeal during the course of appeal proceedings.” 5. Facts of the case

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

section 271(1)(c) were not attracted to the facts of the case. 5. The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 6. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any of the above Grounds of Appeal or to add new Grounds of Appeal during the course of appeal proceedings.” 5. Facts of the case

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)

section 68 and 69C of the IT Act. Ld. DR also submitted before the Bench that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. K. Proteins Ltd. vs. DCIT [2017] 84 taxmann.com 195 (SC) has accepted 100% addition of bogus purchases. Ld. DR also submitted before the Bench that Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case

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)

section 68 and 69C of the IT Act. Ld. DR also submitted before the Bench that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. K. Proteins Ltd. vs. DCIT [2017] 84 taxmann.com 195 (SC) has accepted 100% addition of bogus purchases. Ld. DR also submitted before the Bench that Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case

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

Bogus. His final observations in the summary indicates that neither the assessee could place any evidence which could show how the goods have been transported from SKTPL to its premises nor any evidence could be placed by SKTPL demonstrating the transportation of goods from its office premises to the assessee’s premises. For such non-availability of evidence proving

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

bogus purchases of Rs.1,85,00,000/- as unexplained credit. 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC it was submitted that the assessee is a public charitable trust registered u/s 12A of the Act and the return was filed by claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. It was argued that as per provisions of section

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

bogus purchases of Rs.1,85,00,000/- as unexplained credit. 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC it was submitted that the assessee is a public charitable trust registered u/s 12A of the Act and the return was filed by claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. It was argued that as per provisions of section

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

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

section (3) of section 143 for any\nprevious year; or\nc) Such case has been selected in accordance with the risk\nmanagement strategy, formulated by the Board from time to\ntime, for any previous year;\nThe Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall—\ni.\ncall for such documents or information from the trust\nor institution, or make such inquiry as he thinks

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. SURYACHANDRA LALMANI DUBEY, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.36,56,250/- and suppressed the gross profit for the year under consideration. Also, The M/s Shidrah Multi Trade Link has shown cash receipts of Rs.93,88,389/- from M/s Brahma Steels and shown the outstanding balance of Rs. 28,32,967/- in his books of accounts. On the other hand, M/s Brahma Steels

VIDYARTHI VIKAS PRATISHTHAN JALGAON,JALGAON vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT (NFAC), DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1194/Pun/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Vidyarthi Vikas Pratishthan Assessment Unit, Income Jalgaon, V Tax Department(Nfac) Gat No.148, Yashwant Nagar, S Ramanand Nagar, Maharashtra – 425001. Pan: Aaatv6624R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishnan – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 01/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 02/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21 Passed On 20.09.2023 Emanating From Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 20.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Grounds Of Appeal Filed Before Him By The Assessee & In Vidyarthi Vikas Pratishthan Jalgaon[A]

Purchase bills are attached herewith] Rs.46,89,549/- Less: Closing Stock Rs.5,61,225/- Total Rs.1,08,75,308/- 3. Assessee also claimed during the assessment proceedings, which is mentioned in the assessment order that assessee could not file Return of Income for the year in ITR-7 due to some technical reasons, as a result, assessee filed Return

HETAL RAKESH MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-1(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Hetal Rakesh Mehta Acit, Central Circle 1(2), 9/10, Vidya Nagar, 60 Feet Road, Vs. Pune Ghatkopar East, Mumbai – 400077 Pan: Ammpm9670L (Appellant) (Respondent)

purchases and consequent income arising from these transactions had already been fully disclosed and accounted for in the appellant's income tax return. 3. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the failure of the Assessing Officer to provide the appellant with a copy