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. 6. 10.11.2016 941 to 958 = BP No.2 The Assessing Officer issued further notice asking the assessee to clarify on certain issues. 7. 03.12.2016 1435 to 1569 – PB No.2 The assessee submitted confirmations of a view customers and also details of the URD purchases made. 8. 14.12.2016 1571 to 1731 – PB No.3 The assessee submitted additional details to the Assessing

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. 6. 10.11.2016 941 to 958 = BP No.2 The Assessing Officer issued further notice asking the assessee to clarify on certain issues. 7. 03.12.2016 1435 to 1569 – PB No.2 The assessee submitted confirmations of a view customers and also details of the URD purchases made. 8. 14.12.2016 1571 to 1731 – PB No.3 The assessee submitted additional details to the Assessing

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. 6. 10.11.2016 941 to 958 = BP No.2 The Assessing Officer issued further notice asking the assessee to clarify on certain issues. 7. 03.12.2016 1435 to 1569 – PB No.2 The assessee submitted confirmations of a view customers and also details of the URD purchases made. 8. 14.12.2016 1571 to 1731 – PB No.3 The assessee submitted additional details to the Assessing

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. 6. 10.11.2016 941 to 958 = BP No.2 The Assessing Officer issued further notice asking the assessee to clarify on certain issues. 7. 03.12.2016 1435 to 1569 – PB No.2 The assessee submitted confirmations of a view customers and also details of the URD purchases made. 8. 14.12.2016 1571 to 1731 – PB No.3 The assessee submitted additional details to the Assessing

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. 6. 10.11.2016 941 to 958 = BP No.2 The Assessing Officer issued further notice asking the assessee to clarify on certain issues. 7. 03.12.2016 1435 to 1569 – PB No.2 The assessee submitted confirmations of a view customers and also details of the URD purchases made. 8. 14.12.2016 1571 to 1731 – PB No.3 The assessee submitted additional details to the Assessing

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SATARA vs. KAY BOUVET ENGINEERING LIMITED, SATARA

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. SHANDAR INTERIORS PVT. LD.,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : 3,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

2) the decision of AO in making addition of only 20% on account of the bogus purchases in the reassessment constitutes one of the plausible view. Further, assessee raised Ground No.4 mentioning that the order of AO is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue not only on account of the said bogus purchases but also the sundry

M/S. SHANDAR INTERIORS PVT. LD.,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : 3,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

2) the decision of AO in making addition of only 20% on account of the bogus purchases in the reassessment constitutes one of the plausible view. Further, assessee raised Ground No.4 mentioning that the order of AO is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue not only on account of the said bogus purchases but also the sundry

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"

11. Regarding the allegation of the Pr.CIT relating to bogus purchases, we find the AO has taken up this issue in the re-assessment proceedings u/s.148 of the Act and called for details relating to the purchase of goods, delivery of goods and payment details for the said purchases. At the end of the scrutiny or investigation, AO came

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"

11. Regarding the allegation of the Pr.CIT relating to bogus purchases, we find the AO has taken up this issue in the re-assessment proceedings u/s.148 of the Act and called for details relating to the purchase of goods, delivery of goods and payment details for the said purchases. At the end of the scrutiny or investigation, AO came

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"

11. Regarding the allegation of the Pr.CIT relating to bogus purchases, we find the AO has taken up this issue in the re-assessment proceedings u/s.148 of the Act and called for details relating to the purchase of goods, delivery of goods and payment details for the said purchases. At the end of the scrutiny or investigation, AO came

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. M/S. DELUXE TUBE TRADERS & SCRAP CENTRE,, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

2) against the 25% addition made on account of alleged bogus purchases. Revenue has not filed appeal for the A.Y. 2009-10 against the relief granted by the CIT(A). 4. Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm and is engaged in the business of Trading in Tubes and Scrapes. Assessee filed

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. M/S. DELUXE TUBE TRADERS & SCRAP CENTRE,, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

2) against the 25% addition made on account of alleged bogus purchases. Revenue has not filed appeal for the A.Y. 2009-10 against the relief granted by the CIT(A). 4. Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm and is engaged in the business of Trading in Tubes and Scrapes. Assessee filed

M/S. DELUXE TUBE TRADERS & SCRAP CENTRE,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

2) against the 25% addition made on account of alleged bogus purchases. Revenue has not filed appeal for the A.Y. 2009-10 against the relief granted by the CIT(A). 4. Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm and is engaged in the business of Trading in Tubes and Scrapes. Assessee filed

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

M/S. SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1778 To 1782/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa(Bk), Pune – 411 048. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaccs3670F

section 143(2) after filing the return of income which had rendered the Assessment Order bad in law liable to be set aside. 3. The CIT(A) erred in not deleting the disallowance of Rs.20,31,158/- out of purchases though the purchases were fully verifiable and the payments were made through bank. 4. Without prejudice to Ground

M/S. SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1778 To 1782/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa(Bk), Pune – 411 048. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaccs3670F

section 143(2) after filing the return of income which had rendered the Assessment Order bad in law liable to be set aside. 3. The CIT(A) erred in not deleting the disallowance of Rs.20,31,158/- out of purchases though the purchases were fully verifiable and the payments were made through bank. 4. Without prejudice to Ground

M/S. SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1778 To 1782/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa(Bk), Pune – 411 048. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaccs3670F

section 143(2) after filing the return of income which had rendered the Assessment Order bad in law liable to be set aside. 3. The CIT(A) erred in not deleting the disallowance of Rs.20,31,158/- out of purchases though the purchases were fully verifiable and the payments were made through bank. 4. Without prejudice to Ground