M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

13) r.w.s. 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. This bunch of appeals relating to same assessee on similar issues were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the ITA Nos.1062 to 1068/PUN/2017 2 sake of convenience. However, in order to adjudicate the issues, we refer to the facts

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

13) r.w.s. 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. This bunch of appeals relating to same assessee on similar issues were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the ITA Nos.1062 to 1068/PUN/2017 2 sake of convenience. However, in order to adjudicate the issues, we refer to the facts

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

13) r.w.s. 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. This bunch of appeals relating to same assessee on similar issues were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the ITA Nos.1062 to 1068/PUN/2017 2 sake of convenience. However, in order to adjudicate the issues, we refer to the facts

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

13) r.w.s. 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. This bunch of appeals relating to same assessee on similar issues were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the ITA Nos.1062 to 1068/PUN/2017 2 sake of convenience. However, in order to adjudicate the issues, we refer to the facts

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

13. We heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue on the issue of bogus purchases and the need for making addition of entire such purchases, copies of decisions etc. We have also gone through the purchase bills, other documents filed in the form of paper book by the assessee. The case of the Pr.CIT

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

13. We heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue on the issue of bogus purchases and the need for making addition of entire such purchases, copies of decisions etc. We have also gone through the purchase bills, other documents filed in the form of paper book by the assessee. The case of the Pr.CIT

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

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

13-07-2016 for the A.Yrs. 2010-11 & 2011-12. Assessee has also filed Cross Objections against the appeals filed by the Revenue for the A.Yrs. 2010-11 and 2011-12 vide C.O.Nos. 37 and 38/PUN/2016. There is no cross appeal by the Revenue for the A.Y. 2009- 10. Since there are common issues involved in all these appeals they

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

13-07-2016 for the A.Yrs. 2010-11 & 2011-12. Assessee has also filed Cross Objections against the appeals filed by the Revenue for the A.Yrs. 2010-11 and 2011-12 vide C.O.Nos. 37 and 38/PUN/2016. There is no cross appeal by the Revenue for the A.Y. 2009- 10. Since there are common issues involved in all these appeals they

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

13-07-2016 for the A.Yrs. 2010-11 & 2011-12. Assessee has also filed Cross Objections against the appeals filed by the Revenue for the A.Yrs. 2010-11 and 2011-12 vide C.O.Nos. 37 and 38/PUN/2016. There is no cross appeal by the Revenue for the A.Y. 2009- 10. Since there are common issues involved in all these appeals they

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. MAHALAXMI INFRAPROJECTS LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.142 To 145/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle-1, Kolhapur …. Vs. Mahalaxmi Infraprojects Ltd., 223/3, S-1, B, Malati Towers, E Ward, Tarabai Park, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm2170P आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.146 & 147/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle-1, Kolhapur …. Vs. Mahalaxmi Infraprojects Ltd., 223/3, S-1, B, Malati Towers, E Ward, Tarabai Park, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm2170P

bogus purchases and the Revenue is not in appeal; hence the claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act is restricted to additional income of Rs.35,98,460/- only, which merits to be allowed in the hands of assessee. In respect of grounds of appeal No.2 and 3 raised by the Revenue, the learned Authorized Representative

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. MAHALAXMI INFRAPROJECTS LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.142 To 145/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle-1, Kolhapur …. Vs. Mahalaxmi Infraprojects Ltd., 223/3, S-1, B, Malati Towers, E Ward, Tarabai Park, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm2170P आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.146 & 147/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle-1, Kolhapur …. Vs. Mahalaxmi Infraprojects Ltd., 223/3, S-1, B, Malati Towers, E Ward, Tarabai Park, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm2170P

bogus purchases and the Revenue is not in appeal; hence the claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act is restricted to additional income of Rs.35,98,460/- only, which merits to be allowed in the hands of assessee. In respect of grounds of appeal No.2 and 3 raised by the Revenue, the learned Authorized Representative

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. MAHALAXMI INFRAPROJECTS LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.142 To 145/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle-1, Kolhapur …. Vs. Mahalaxmi Infraprojects Ltd., 223/3, S-1, B, Malati Towers, E Ward, Tarabai Park, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm2170P आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.146 & 147/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle-1, Kolhapur …. Vs. Mahalaxmi Infraprojects Ltd., 223/3, S-1, B, Malati Towers, E Ward, Tarabai Park, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm2170P

bogus purchases and the Revenue is not in appeal; hence the claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act is restricted to additional income of Rs.35,98,460/- only, which merits to be allowed in the hands of assessee. In respect of grounds of appeal No.2 and 3 raised by the Revenue, the learned Authorized Representative

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. MAHALAXMI INFRAPROJECTS LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.142 To 145/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle-1, Kolhapur …. Vs. Mahalaxmi Infraprojects Ltd., 223/3, S-1, B, Malati Towers, E Ward, Tarabai Park, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm2170P आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.146 & 147/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle-1, Kolhapur …. Vs. Mahalaxmi Infraprojects Ltd., 223/3, S-1, B, Malati Towers, E Ward, Tarabai Park, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm2170P

bogus purchases and the Revenue is not in appeal; hence the claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act is restricted to additional income of Rs.35,98,460/- only, which merits to be allowed in the hands of assessee. In respect of grounds of appeal No.2 and 3 raised by the Revenue, the learned Authorized Representative

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"

bogus purchases constitutes a debatable one. As such, the AO has taken one prevailing view in this matter. Therefore, thrusting another view by the Pr.CIT in his revision order in our view is outside the scope of provisions of section 263 of the Act. Therefore, it is not a clear cut case of erroneous assumption of law as made

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"

bogus purchases constitutes a debatable one. As such, the AO has taken one prevailing view in this matter. Therefore, thrusting another view by the Pr.CIT in his revision order in our view is outside the scope of provisions of section 263 of the Act. Therefore, it is not a clear cut case of erroneous assumption of law as made

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"

bogus purchases constitutes a debatable one. As such, the AO has taken one prevailing view in this matter. Therefore, thrusting another view by the Pr.CIT in his revision order in our view is outside the scope of provisions of section 263 of the Act. Therefore, it is not a clear cut case of erroneous assumption of law as made

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

bogus / untested purchases, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that adoption of the same percentage of profit i.e. 5% on such unaccounted sale of Rs.17,42,000/- should be added to the total income of the assessee which in the instant case comes to Rs.87,100/-. When the documents found containing certain transactions