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

133(6) nor appeared before the Assessing Officer in response to the Summons issued u/s 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

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 NASSHIK, NASHIK vs. HARSH CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Circle – 1, Harsh Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Nashik Sanskruti, Murkute Colony, Vs. New Pandit Colony, Sharanpur Road, Nashik – 422002 Pan: Aacch2277H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj S. Dandgaval Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 03-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.12.2023 Of The Cit(A) / Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue In The Grounds Of Appeal Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Restricting The Disallowance To Rs.2,24,191/- As Against Rs.1,25,51,607/- Proposed By The Assessing Officer In The Remand Report As Against Rs.4,38,96,880/- Added By Him In The Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

bogus and non- genuine due to non compliance of notices issued u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued to various sub-contractor. Further, during the remand report proceeding, the Ld. Assessing officer has proposed the addition of Rs.1,25,51,607/-instead of addition of Rs.4,41,21,079/- as earlier made after due verification, details

R. K. WINES,PEN vs. ITO, WARD 4, PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

bogus purchases from the disputed\ncreditors. It is thus the case that without such purchases the subsequent\nsale of liquor could not have been effected.\nThe appellant submits that non responding by some parties to notice us\n133(6) cannot be a ground to reject book results u/s 145(3) Reliance\nplaced on CIT-vs-Jas Jack Elegance Exports

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHAPUR vs. NATHMAL RUPCHAND JAIN, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

133(6) of the Act, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has made cash deposits during the financial year 2019-2020 relevant to the assessment year 2020-21 to the tune of Rs.4,43,90,000/-. He, therefore, asked the assessee to explain as to why the purchases made by the assessee under the proprietorship concern of Pooja Jewellers

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. ANIL JAIRAM GOEL, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

6. Ld. DR appearing from side of the Revenue submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is unjustified. Ld. DR further submitted that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in taking the profit margin at 12.5% on estimate basis without any cogent reason, instead of making 100% addition of bogus purchase bills. Ld. DR submitted before

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. ANIL JAIRAM GOEL, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

6. Ld. DR appearing from side of the Revenue submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is unjustified. Ld. DR further submitted that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in taking the profit margin at 12.5% on estimate basis without any cogent reason, instead of making 100% addition of bogus purchase bills. Ld. DR submitted before

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

AADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

bogus purchase by assessee received by DRI from CCE which was passed on to revenue authorities was 'tangible material outside record to initiate valid reassessment proceedings. Thus there was no borrowed satisfaction on the part of the AO. There was independent application of mind on the part of the AO. Further reliance is placed upon clause (b) of explanation

M/S. GORDHANSINGH S RAJPUROHIT,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, PANVEL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

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

133(6).  The Ld. CIT(A) not considered the facts that the Hon’ble ITAT deleted the adhoc additions fully in similar cases. We relied on the following judgments of the higher forum :-  Income Tax Appeal No 1004 of 2016 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in case of The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax V.s Mohammad Haji

GOPAL EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2),, JALGAON

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.1633/Pun/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09

purchased back even at a loss, share transactions in question were to be regarded as bogus and, thus, amount received from said transactions was to be added to assesee's taxable income under section 68 13. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before us. Through this appeal the assessee has challenged the validity

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. M/S PARTHA MULTITRADE INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.682 To 685/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 & 2013-14 Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. M/S. Partha Multitrade Aurangabad. India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Swift Ventures Pvt. Ltd.), Flat No.1/5, A. S. Yadav Chawl Pada, Nr. Mahakali Mandir, Dahisar, Mumbai-400068. Pan : Aalcs3668L Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 30.06.2022 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Revenue, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Revenue In Ita No.685/Pun/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

133(6) of the Act. Based on the information furnished by these three companies as well as information downloaded from the website of the Ministry of Company Affairs, the Assessing Officer found out that the purchaser companies had very meagre source of income, therefore, disbelieved that this companies had purchased the investments from the respondent- assessee company. Such belief

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. M/S PARTHA MULTRITRADE INDIA PVT LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS SWIFT VENTURES PVT LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.682 To 685/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 & 2013-14 Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. M/S. Partha Multitrade Aurangabad. India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Swift Ventures Pvt. Ltd.), Flat No.1/5, A. S. Yadav Chawl Pada, Nr. Mahakali Mandir, Dahisar, Mumbai-400068. Pan : Aalcs3668L Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 30.06.2022 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Revenue, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Revenue In Ita No.685/Pun/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

133(6) of the Act. Based on the information furnished by these three companies as well as information downloaded from the website of the Ministry of Company Affairs, the Assessing Officer found out that the purchaser companies had very meagre source of income, therefore, disbelieved that this companies had purchased the investments from the respondent- assessee company. Such belief

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. M/S PARTHA MULTITRADE INDIA PVT LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS SWIFT VENTURES PVT LTD), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.682 To 685/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 & 2013-14 Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. M/S. Partha Multitrade Aurangabad. India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Swift Ventures Pvt. Ltd.), Flat No.1/5, A. S. Yadav Chawl Pada, Nr. Mahakali Mandir, Dahisar, Mumbai-400068. Pan : Aalcs3668L Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 30.06.2022 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Revenue, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Revenue In Ita No.685/Pun/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

133(6) of the Act. Based on the information furnished by these three companies as well as information downloaded from the website of the Ministry of Company Affairs, the Assessing Officer found out that the purchaser companies had very meagre source of income, therefore, disbelieved that this companies had purchased the investments from the respondent- assessee company. Such belief

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, , AURANGABAD vs. M/S PARTHA MULTITRADE INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.682 To 685/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 & 2013-14 Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. M/S. Partha Multitrade Aurangabad. India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Swift Ventures Pvt. Ltd.), Flat No.1/5, A. S. Yadav Chawl Pada, Nr. Mahakali Mandir, Dahisar, Mumbai-400068. Pan : Aalcs3668L Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 30.06.2022 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Revenue, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Revenue In Ita No.685/Pun/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

133(6) of the Act. Based on the information furnished by these three companies as well as information downloaded from the website of the Ministry of Company Affairs, the Assessing Officer found out that the purchaser companies had very meagre source of income, therefore, disbelieved that this companies had purchased the investments from the respondent- assessee company. Such belief

HETAL RAKESH MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Hetal Rakesh Mehta Acit, Central Circle 1(2), 9/10, Vidya Nagar, 60 Feet Road, Vs. Pune Ghatkopar East, Mumbai – 400077 Pan: Ammpm9670L (Appellant) (Respondent)

purchases and consequent income arising from these transactions had already been fully disclosed and accounted for in the appellant's income tax return. 3. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the failure of the Assessing Officer to provide the appellant with a copy

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

Section 10(38)\nand treating such long term capital gain as bogus.\n\n25. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble AP High Court in the case of M/s.\nManidhari Stainless Wire (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India vide W.P. No.5917 of 2017,\norder dated 31.10.2017, copy of which is placed in the paper book, he submitted\nthat

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

Section 10(38)\nand treating such long term capital gain as bogus.\n\n25. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble AP High Court in the case of M/s.\nManidhari Stainless Wire (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India vide W.P. No.5917 of 2017,\norder dated 31.10.2017, copy of which is placed in the paper book, he submitted\nthat

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

Section 10(38)\nand treating such long term capital gain as bogus.\n\n25. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble AP High Court in the case of M/s.\nManidhari Stainless Wire (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India vide W.P. No.5917 of 2017,\norder dated 31.10.2017, copy of which is placed in the paper book, he submitted\nthat