DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

bogus bills and offering equal amount for taxation, the same cannot be retracted as it constitutes `evidence’. In order to appreciate this contention, let us have a look at the mandate of sub-section (4) of section 132 which provides that : `The authorised officer may, during the course of 8 Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad the search or seizure, examine on oath

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

bogus bills and offering equal amount for taxation, the same cannot be retracted as it constitutes `evidence’. In order to appreciate this contention, let us have a look at the mandate of sub-section (4) of section 132 which provides that : `The authorised officer may, during the course of 8 Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad the search or seizure, examine on oath

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

bogus bills and offering equal amount for taxation, the same cannot be retracted as it constitutes `evidence’. In order to appreciate this contention, let us have a look at the mandate of sub-section (4) of section 132 which provides that : `The authorised officer may, during the course of 8 Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad the search or seizure, examine on oath

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

bogus bills and offering equal amount for taxation, the same cannot be retracted as it constitutes `evidence’. In order to appreciate this contention, let us have a look at the mandate of sub-section (4) of section 132 which provides that : `The authorised officer may, during the course of 8 Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad the search or seizure, examine on oath

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

bogus bills and offering equal amount for taxation, the same cannot be retracted as it constitutes `evidence’. In order to appreciate this contention, let us have a look at the mandate of sub-section (4) of section 132 which provides that : `The authorised officer may, during the course of 8 Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad the search or seizure, examine on oath

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

bogus bills and offering equal amount for taxation, the same cannot be retracted as it constitutes `evidence’. In order to appreciate this contention, let us have a look at the mandate of sub-section (4) of section 132 which provides that : `The authorised officer may, during the course of 8 Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad the search or seizure, examine on oath

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

bogus bills and offering equal amount for taxation, the same cannot be retracted as it constitutes `evidence’. In order to appreciate this contention, let us have a look at the mandate of sub-section (4) of section 132 which provides that : `The authorised officer may, during the course of 8 Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad the search or seizure, examine on oath

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

bogus bills and offering equal amount for taxation, the same cannot be retracted as it constitutes `evidence’. In order to appreciate this contention, let us have a look at the mandate of sub-section (4) of section 132 which provides that : `The authorised officer may, during the course of 8 Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad the search or seizure, examine on oath

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

bogus bills and offering equal amount for taxation, the same cannot be retracted as it constitutes `evidence’. In order to appreciate this contention, let us have a look at the mandate of sub-section (4) of section 132 which provides that : `The authorised officer may, during the course of 8 Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad the search or seizure, examine on oath

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

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

bogus purchases of Rs.13,80,63,994/- will meet the ends of justice. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to adopt the profit rate of 5% on the total purchases of Rs.13,80,63,994/- and restrict the addition to Rs.69,03,200/-. The order

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 purchases of Rs.13,80,63,994/- will meet the ends of justice. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to adopt the profit rate of 5% on the total purchases of Rs.13,80,63,994/- and restrict the addition to Rs.69,03,200/-. The order

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

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

section 19 IT(SS)A Nos.91 to 96/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.97 & 98/PUN/2022 68 of the Act. In the circumstances, the AO was not justified in making the addition of unsecured loans. E. As regards, the addition made on account of alleged receipt of on-money consideration in cash, as well as, the payment of alleged on-money purchase consideration

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

bogus purchases from various entities in respect of the assessee company. In the appraisal report names of 19 parties were mentioned. Notices u/s 133(6) of the Act were issued to these parties and the purchases were confirmed by the parties except OM Traders, Sunny Traders and Krypton Scrap Works Pvt. Ltd. It was further mentioned that information was also

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

132 of the Act was conducted on 26.11.2014 and the orders u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act were passed by the Assessing Officer on commonly dated 30/12/2016. The “income returned” by the assessee and the “total income determined” by the Assessing Officer in the respective assessment years are detailed as follows :- A.Y. Returned income by Total income determined

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

132 of the Act was conducted on 26.11.2014 and the orders u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act were passed by the Assessing Officer on commonly dated 30/12/2016. The “income returned” by the assessee and the “total income determined” by the Assessing Officer in the respective assessment years are detailed as follows :- A.Y. Returned income by Total income determined

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

132 of the Act was conducted on 26.11.2014 and the orders u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act were passed by the Assessing Officer on commonly dated 30/12/2016. The “income returned” by the assessee and the “total income determined” by the Assessing Officer in the respective assessment years are detailed as follows :- A.Y. Returned income by Total income determined

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

132 of the Act was conducted on 26.11.2014 and the orders u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act were passed by the Assessing Officer on commonly dated 30/12/2016. The “income returned” by the assessee and the “total income determined” by the Assessing Officer in the respective assessment years are detailed as follows :- A.Y. Returned income by Total income determined