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

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

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

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, 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

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

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

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

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

purchases as bogus.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "143(1)(a)", "143(3)", "133A", "131", "148", "68", "44AB", "132(4)" ], "issues": "Whether

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

132(4) specifically authorizes an officer to examine a person on oath, section 133A does not permit the same. Moreover, the word ‘may’ used in section 133A(iii) clarifies beyond doubt that the material collected and the statement recorded during the survey are not conclusive piece of evidence by themselves. CO Nos.28 & 33/PUN/2025 15. Referring to the decision

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

132 of the ITA, 1961 is given at Page 282 to 354 of the ITA, 1961.\nAll retraction affidavits are brushed aside and not considered in their\nproper perspective.\n3. 2. Premature act to cancel 12A when assessment proceedings are\nongoing\nThe learned PCIT, CC has assumed the jurisdiction for cancellation of\n12A registration of the appellant. It is submitted