ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. ASHAPURA RUBBER UDYOG,, NASHIK

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

131 of the Act. 7. We perused the above facts and considered the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Shree Mukeshkumar Pukhraj Mehta vs. ITO vide ITA No.2026/PUN/2014. This decision relied upon by the ld. DR is distinguishable on facts. We also considered the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Chhabi Electricals Pvt. Ltd. and others

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

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

bogus purchases and appellant has furnished evidences in form of delivery challans, purchase bills etc. (mentioning the point of origin of goods, destination, detail of vehicle numbers in which goods were transported as well as name of consignor and consignee) relating to same before the AO. Thus, appellant had successfully discharged initial burden or onus of providing details of party

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

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

131 of the Act. At the same time, it is also an admitted fact that the sales of the assessee have not been disputed and the books of account have also not been rejected. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and considering the fact that the Assessing Officer in assessee's own case for the four preceding

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

131 of the Act. At the same time, it is also an admitted fact that the sales of the assessee have not been disputed and the books of account have also not been rejected. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and considering the fact that the Assessing Officer in assessee‟s own case for the four preceding

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

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

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

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

131 of the Act. In the statement the Assessing Officer confronted the partner of the assessee regarding purchases of Rs.88,76,319/- from the parties M/s. Raj Metal Industries, M/s. Rajlaxmi Corporation & Reliable Metal Works and Ramani Metal Corporation. He noted that the transaction relates to bogus bills, fake purchases bills and without actual movement of goods. Non-genuine bills

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

131 of the Act. In the statement the Assessing Officer confronted the partner of the assessee regarding purchases of Rs.88,76,319/- from the parties M/s. Raj Metal Industries, M/s. Rajlaxmi Corporation & Reliable Metal Works and Ramani Metal Corporation. He noted that the transaction relates to bogus bills, fake purchases bills and without actual movement of goods. Non-genuine bills

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

131 of the Act. In the statement the Assessing Officer confronted the partner of the assessee regarding purchases of Rs.88,76,319/- from the parties M/s. Raj Metal Industries, M/s. Rajlaxmi Corporation & Reliable Metal Works and Ramani Metal Corporation. He noted that the transaction relates to bogus bills, fake purchases bills and without actual movement of goods. Non-genuine bills

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

131 of the Act. In the statement the Assessing Officer confronted the partner of the assessee regarding purchases of Rs.88,76,319/- from the parties M/s. Raj Metal Industries, M/s. Rajlaxmi Corporation & Reliable Metal Works and Ramani Metal Corporation. He noted that the transaction relates to bogus bills, fake purchases bills and without actual movement of goods. Non-genuine bills

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

131 of the Act. In the statement the Assessing Officer confronted the partner of the assessee regarding purchases of Rs.88,76,319/- from the parties M/s. Raj Metal Industries, M/s. Rajlaxmi Corporation & Reliable Metal Works and Ramani Metal Corporation. He noted that the transaction relates to bogus bills, fake purchases bills and without actual movement of goods. Non-genuine bills

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

131 of the Act. In the statement the Assessing Officer confronted the partner of the assessee regarding purchases of Rs.88,76,319/- from the parties M/s. Raj Metal Industries, M/s. Rajlaxmi Corporation & Reliable Metal Works and Ramani Metal Corporation. He noted that the transaction relates to bogus bills, fake purchases bills and without actual movement of goods. Non-genuine bills