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

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and both the COs filed\nby the assessee are dismissed

13 vs Vaman International\n[2020] 422 ITR 0520 (Bom)\n(viii) Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Tirupati Earth Neerprima\nJV [2023] 154 taxmann.com 197 (Bombay)\nThe sum and substance of the above judicial decisions are that the purchase cannot\nbe disallowed merely on the information received from sales tax department that\nassessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries

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

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

13,558/- being the profit @ 5% on account of bogus / untested\npurchases of Rs.8,82,71,173/- wherein M/s Divya Enterprises Prop. Sagar Suraj\nAgrawal is a party and the details of which are as under:\nSr.\nNo.\nParticulars\nTaxable\nValue (Rs.)\nExcise\nDuty\nGST Input\n(Rs.)\nFreight\n(Rs.)\nInvoice\nValue (Rs.)\n1\nM/s. Shri Shyam Steels,\nProp

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

13,33,848 - 87,44,109 Prop. Sagar Suraj Agrawal 5 M/s. Indian Steel 5,60,430 - 1,00,877 - 6,61,306 Traders Prop. Imran Khan 6 M/s. Rehan Enterprises 2,46,06,601 - 44,29,185 - 2,90,35,786 Total 8,82,71,173 6,07,100 1,50,00,480 1

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

section 271AAB of the IT Act, 1961 are initiated herewith. (Addition Rs.17,42,770/-)” 6. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted both the additions made by the Assessing Officer. So far as the addition on account of bogus purchases is concerned, he deleted the same by observing as under: 8 “5.2 I have gone through the submission

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

E-way bill portal Further, in the very next para, it mentions that on the basis of explanation made by the assessee and its vendors were found that the goods have been supplied by M/s Sharpking Trading Co.Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai and M/s Krishna Upsana Mfg. Co. Pvt. Hence, the enquiry was closed by Commissioner, CGST & CX, Nashik. It is pertinent

ABIL REALTY PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Abil Realty Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward 1(1), Pune Abil House, 2 Ganesh Khind Road, Vs. Range Hill Corner, Pune – 411007 Pan: Aaica8531I (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket M Joshi & Mandar Joshi Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 08-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-03-2025 O R D E R

purchased and sold was not owned by the appellant company but by M/s Beeline Impex Pvt. Ltd & Pearl Cosmetics & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. the said land was having certain legal issues and encumbrances due to which the development of the property was not possible. It is far-fetched that a real estate business entity would give/take an advance of crores

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

E R PER BENCH: ITA No.2319/PUN/2024 and ITA No.2262/PUN/2024 are cross appeals. The first one is filed by the assessee and the second one filed by the Revenue and are directed against the order dated 12.09.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2009-10. ITA No.2321/PUN/2024 and ITA No.2320/PUN/2024 filed by the assessee

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

E R PER BENCH: ITA No.2319/PUN/2024 and ITA No.2262/PUN/2024 are cross appeals. The first one is filed by the assessee and the second one filed by the Revenue and are directed against the order dated 12.09.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2009-10. ITA No.2321/PUN/2024 and ITA No.2320/PUN/2024 filed by the assessee

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

E R PER BENCH: ITA No.2319/PUN/2024 and ITA No.2262/PUN/2024 are cross appeals. The first one is filed by the assessee and the second one filed by the Revenue and are directed against the order dated 12.09.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2009-10. ITA No.2321/PUN/2024 and ITA No.2320/PUN/2024 filed by the assessee

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

E R PER BENCH: ITA No.2319/PUN/2024 and ITA No.2262/PUN/2024 are cross appeals. The first one is filed by the assessee and the second one filed by the Revenue and are directed against the order dated 12.09.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2009-10. ITA No.2321/PUN/2024 and ITA No.2320/PUN/2024 filed by the assessee

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

E R PER BENCH: ITA No.2319/PUN/2024 and ITA No.2262/PUN/2024 are cross appeals. The first one is filed by the assessee and the second one filed by the Revenue and are directed against the order dated 12.09.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2009-10. ITA No.2321/PUN/2024 and ITA No.2320/PUN/2024 filed by the assessee

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

E R PER BENCH: ITA No.2319/PUN/2024 and ITA No.2262/PUN/2024 are cross appeals. The first one is filed by the assessee and the second one filed by the Revenue and are directed against the order dated 12.09.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2009-10. ITA No.2321/PUN/2024 and ITA No.2320/PUN/2024 filed by the assessee

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

purchases is also bogus and the assessee would have earned only commission for providing such false entries in its books of account. He, therefore, added an amount of Rs.3,60,11,804/- being the commission @ 2% on such bogus sales amounting to Rs.1,80,05,90,205/- as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act. 7. Before

DCIT-CIRCLE 7 PUNE, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK PUNE vs. TRIO CHEMSUCROTECH ENG. PROJECTS PVT. LTD, PUNE

e) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in the law, the CIT (A) has erred in holding the objections of the AO, in admitting the revised stand of the assessee, as mere surmises and conjectures (in para 5.6.4 of his order) even when the same were substantiated and logical?\n(f) Whether on the facts

ALNESH AKIL SOMJI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

E R PER R.K. PANDA, V.P: The above 2 appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the common order dated 07.11.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), Pune -11 relating to assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20 respectively. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Facts

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

E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 10.04.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2020-21. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and the proprietor of Pooja Jewellers engaged in trading of jewellery and ornaments

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

E account of Assessee trust. Considering the above facts, it is clear that assessee trust has claimed bogus expenditure resulting in incorrect claim of application of income leading to underassessment of total income of Assessee trust to extent of Rs.1,84,99,795/-. Therefore, I have reason to believe that income to extent of Rs.1,84,99,795/- has escaped

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

E account of Assessee trust. Considering the above facts, it is clear that assessee trust has claimed bogus expenditure resulting in incorrect claim of application of income leading to underassessment of total income of Assessee trust to extent of Rs.1,84,99,795/-. Therefore, I have reason to believe that income to extent of Rs.1,84,99,795/- has escaped