YOG INDUSTRIES LTD.,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.866 & 867/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Aurangabad-431001 …. Pan: Aaacy1238P Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Aurangabad आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.868 & 869/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Aurangabad-431001 …. Pan: Aaacy1238P Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Aurangabad आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.881 & 882/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 3, Aurangabad …. Vs. Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Aurangabad-431001 Pan: Aaacy1238P

13. The Assessing Officer has thus, initiated penalty proceedings under Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which deals with concealment of income and for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, which is the other limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The requirement of law is that the assessee is to be show caused

YOG INDUSTRIES LTD.,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.866 & 867/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Aurangabad-431001 …. Pan: Aaacy1238P Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Aurangabad आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.868 & 869/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Aurangabad-431001 …. Pan: Aaacy1238P Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Aurangabad आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.881 & 882/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 3, Aurangabad …. Vs. Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Aurangabad-431001 Pan: Aaacy1238P

13. The Assessing Officer has thus, initiated penalty proceedings under Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which deals with concealment of income and for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, which is the other limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The requirement of law is that the assessee is to be show caused

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. YOG INDUSTRIES LTD.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.866 & 867/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Aurangabad-431001 …. Pan: Aaacy1238P Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Aurangabad आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.868 & 869/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Aurangabad-431001 …. Pan: Aaacy1238P Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Aurangabad आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.881 & 882/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 3, Aurangabad …. Vs. Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Aurangabad-431001 Pan: Aaacy1238P

13. The Assessing Officer has thus, initiated penalty proceedings under Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which deals with concealment of income and for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, which is the other limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The requirement of law is that the assessee is to be show caused

YOG INDUSTRIES LTD.,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.866 & 867/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Aurangabad-431001 …. Pan: Aaacy1238P Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Aurangabad आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.868 & 869/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Aurangabad-431001 …. Pan: Aaacy1238P Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Aurangabad आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.881 & 882/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 3, Aurangabad …. Vs. Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Aurangabad-431001 Pan: Aaacy1238P

13. The Assessing Officer has thus, initiated penalty proceedings under Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which deals with concealment of income and for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, which is the other limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The requirement of law is that the assessee is to be show caused

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. YOG INDUSTRIES LTD.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.866 & 867/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Aurangabad-431001 …. Pan: Aaacy1238P Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Aurangabad आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.868 & 869/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Aurangabad-431001 …. Pan: Aaacy1238P Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Aurangabad आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.881 & 882/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 3, Aurangabad …. Vs. Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Aurangabad-431001 Pan: Aaacy1238P

13. The Assessing Officer has thus, initiated penalty proceedings under Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which deals with concealment of income and for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, which is the other limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The requirement of law is that the assessee is to be show caused

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 vs. DEEPAK SHANKAR PANASKAR,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 203 & 204/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11

bogus purchases over and above the GP declared by the assessee. 7. We have considered the decision in the case of Mukeshkumar Pukhraj Mehta Vs. The Income Tax Officer (supra.) on which the ld. DR has placed reliance. In the said case, the assessee had admitted to the addition of purchases made from the hawala dealers. No supporting documents substantiating

INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. DEEPAK SHANKAR PANASKAR,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 203 & 204/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11

bogus purchases over and above the GP declared by the assessee. 7. We have considered the decision in the case of Mukeshkumar Pukhraj Mehta Vs. The Income Tax Officer (supra.) on which the ld. DR has placed reliance. In the said case, the assessee had admitted to the addition of purchases made from the hawala dealers. No supporting documents substantiating

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

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1302/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Chetas Control Systems Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.1, S.No.8+9, Chetas House, Shree Sidhatek Hsg. Society, Sutarwadi, Pashan, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411021 Pan: Aaacc7437N अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Gawli प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : None घोषणा की तारीख / सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2018

13 lakhs, balance amount of ₹ 1,17,00,000/- was capitalized and disallowed as revenue expenditure under section 37 of the Act. The Assessing Officer further held that the assessee has concealed particulars of its income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are being initiated separately. In the penalty order

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

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

c. Third method is calculating 20% of such bogus purchases which comes out to be Rs.6,72,146/-. I am of the opinion that 20% of the total purchases made from such alleged parties is needed to be added back to the income as it is the most reasonable amount amongst all.” Accordingly, the AO restricted the addition

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

c. Third method is calculating 20% of such bogus purchases which comes out to be Rs.6,72,146/-. I am of the opinion that 20% of the total purchases made from such alleged parties is needed to be added back to the income as it is the most reasonable amount amongst all.” Accordingly, the AO restricted the addition

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

section 133(6) of A.Ys.2009-10 to 2011-12 the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the assessee failing to file any documentary evidence of delivery of goods, addition is to be upheld in the hands of assessee on account of such bogus purchases. IV. The next instance is the case of goods

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

section 133(6) of A.Ys.2009-10 to 2011-12 the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the assessee failing to file any documentary evidence of delivery of goods, addition is to be upheld in the hands of assessee on account of such bogus purchases. IV. The next instance is the case of goods

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. GHODAWAT FOODS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

1)(c) dated 13-08-2014, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by placing reliance on the decision of Tribunal in assessee‟s own case for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 deleted penalty in toto. Now, the Revenue is in appeal against the order of Commissioner