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

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

D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : There are three appeals under consideration involving assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. All the three appeals filed by the Revenue are against the common orders of CIT(A)-2, Nashik dated 08.06.2016. Since the facts and issues are common in all the three appeals, therefore, these were heard together and are being

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

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

D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : There are three appeals under consideration involving assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. All the three appeals filed by the Revenue are against the common orders of CIT(A)-2, Nashik dated 08.06.2016. Since the facts and issues are common in all the three appeals, therefore, these were heard together and are being

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

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(d) of the IT Act has conducted enquiry and reported that the suppliers of material i.e. M/s Om Traders an M/s Sunny Traders to the assessee company are non-filer of return of income and found to be non-existent, thereby the identity of the suppliers is no proved beyond doubt. 4. Whether on the facts

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

purchases and expenses and also based on the information collected from the assessee observed that the assessee company has arranged bogus expenses of Rs.24.24 crore which inter alia included bogus commission expenses also. When the assessee was confronted, it was submitted that these bogus losses have been arranged to cover up the inflated project value invoiced to TIL by Rs.26.55

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

D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: There are seven appeals under consideration involving the same assessee for the respective assessment years starting from A.Y. 2009-10 to 2015-16. All the seven appeals are filed against the respective revision orders of the Pr. CIT-(Central), Pune (Pr.CIT) u/s 263 of the Act commonly dated 11.03.2019. Since the grounds and issues are common

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

D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: There are seven appeals under consideration involving the same assessee for the respective assessment years starting from A.Y. 2009-10 to 2015-16. All the seven appeals are filed against the respective revision orders of the Pr. CIT-(Central), Pune (Pr.CIT) u/s 263 of the Act commonly dated 11.03.2019. Since the grounds and issues are common

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

D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: There are seven appeals under consideration involving the same assessee for the respective assessment years starting from A.Y. 2009-10 to 2015-16. All the seven appeals are filed against the respective revision orders of the Pr. CIT-(Central), Pune (Pr.CIT) u/s 263 of the Act commonly dated 11.03.2019. Since the grounds and issues are common

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

D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: There are seven appeals under consideration involving the same assessee for the respective assessment years starting from A.Y. 2009-10 to 2015-16. All the seven appeals are filed against the respective revision orders of the Pr. CIT-(Central), Pune (Pr.CIT) u/s 263 of the Act commonly dated 11.03.2019. Since the grounds and issues are common

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

D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: There are seven appeals under consideration involving the same assessee for the respective assessment years starting from A.Y. 2009-10 to 2015-16. All the seven appeals are filed against the respective revision orders of the Pr. CIT-(Central), Pune (Pr.CIT) u/s 263 of the Act commonly dated 11.03.2019. Since the grounds and issues are common

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

D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: There are seven appeals under consideration involving the same assessee for the respective assessment years starting from A.Y. 2009-10 to 2015-16. All the seven appeals are filed against the respective revision orders of the Pr. CIT-(Central), Pune (Pr.CIT) u/s 263 of the Act commonly dated 11.03.2019. Since the grounds and issues are common

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

D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: There are seven appeals under consideration involving the same assessee for the respective assessment years starting from A.Y. 2009-10 to 2015-16. All the seven appeals are filed against the respective revision orders of the Pr. CIT-(Central), Pune (Pr.CIT) u/s 263 of the Act commonly dated 11.03.2019. Since the grounds and issues are common

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

D 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

D 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

D 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

D 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

D 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

D 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