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

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

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

section 133(6) of the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the bogus purchases

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

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

section 133(6) of the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the bogus purchases

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

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

section 133(6) of the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the bogus purchases

CHETAS CONTROL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

section 133(6) of A.Ys.2009-10 to 2011-12 the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the assessee failing to file any documentary evidence of delivery of goods, addition is to be upheld in the hands of assessee on account of such bogus purchases

CHETAS CONTROL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

section 133(6) of A.Ys.2009-10 to 2011-12 the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the assessee failing to file any documentary evidence of delivery of goods, addition is to be upheld in the hands of assessee on account of such bogus purchases

ANITA SANJAY AGRAWAL,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

section 133(6) of the Act to the dealer were returned back. But the same cannot be reason for denying cross- examination. In the absence of allowing cross-examination of witnesses used ITA Nos.2622 to 2630/PUN/2016 hands of assessee. The assessee had also established factum of trail of goods. Accordingly, we delete the addition made on account of bogus purchases

SANJAY SHRAWAN AGRAWAL HUF,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

section 133(6) of the Act to the dealer were returned back. But the same cannot be reason for denying cross- examination. In the absence of allowing cross-examination of witnesses used ITA Nos.2622 to 2630/PUN/2016 hands of assessee. The assessee had also established factum of trail of goods. Accordingly, we delete the addition made on account of bogus purchases

TRIMURTI FURNANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

section 133(6) of the Act to the dealer were returned back. But the same cannot be reason for denying cross- examination. In the absence of allowing cross-examination of witnesses used ITA Nos.2622 to 2630/PUN/2016 hands of assessee. The assessee had also established factum of trail of goods. Accordingly, we delete the addition made on account of bogus purchases

SHRAWAN KESHAVLAL AGRAWAL HUF,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

section 133(6) of the Act to the dealer were returned back. But the same cannot be reason for denying cross- examination. In the absence of allowing cross-examination of witnesses used ITA Nos.2622 to 2630/PUN/2016 hands of assessee. The assessee had also established factum of trail of goods. Accordingly, we delete the addition made on account of bogus purchases

SHRAWAN KESHAVLAL AGRAWAL HUF,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

section 133(6) of the Act to the dealer were returned back. But the same cannot be reason for denying cross- examination. In the absence of allowing cross-examination of witnesses used ITA Nos.2622 to 2630/PUN/2016 hands of assessee. The assessee had also established factum of trail of goods. Accordingly, we delete the addition made on account of bogus purchases

ANITA SANJAY AGRAWAL,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

section 133(6) of the Act to the dealer were returned back. But the same cannot be reason for denying cross- examination. In the absence of allowing cross-examination of witnesses used ITA Nos.2622 to 2630/PUN/2016 hands of assessee. The assessee had also established factum of trail of goods. Accordingly, we delete the addition made on account of bogus purchases

TRIMURTI FURNANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

section 133(6) of the Act to the dealer were returned back. But the same cannot be reason for denying cross- examination. In the absence of allowing cross-examination of witnesses used ITA Nos.2622 to 2630/PUN/2016 hands of assessee. The assessee had also established factum of trail of goods. Accordingly, we delete the addition made on account of bogus purchases

SANJAY SHRAWAN AGRAWAL HUF,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

section 133(6) of the Act to the dealer were returned back. But the same cannot be reason for denying cross- examination. In the absence of allowing cross-examination of witnesses used ITA Nos.2622 to 2630/PUN/2016 hands of assessee. The assessee had also established factum of trail of goods. Accordingly, we delete the addition made on account of bogus purchases

TRIMURTI FURNANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

section 133(6) of the Act to the dealer were returned back. But the same cannot be reason for denying cross- examination. In the absence of allowing cross-examination of witnesses used ITA Nos.2622 to 2630/PUN/2016 hands of assessee. The assessee had also established factum of trail of goods. Accordingly, we delete the addition made on account of bogus purchases

ANITA SANJAY AGRAWAL,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

section 133(6) of the Act to the dealer were returned back. But the same cannot be reason for denying cross- examination. In the absence of allowing cross-examination of witnesses used ITA Nos.2622 to 2630/PUN/2016 hands of assessee. The assessee had also established factum of trail of goods. Accordingly, we delete the addition made on account of bogus purchases

SHRAWAN KESHAVLAL AGRAWAL HUF,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

section 133(6) of the Act to the dealer were returned back. But the same cannot be reason for denying cross- examination. In the absence of allowing cross-examination of witnesses used ITA Nos.2622 to 2630/PUN/2016 hands of assessee. The assessee had also established factum of trail of goods. Accordingly, we delete the addition made on account of bogus purchases