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 133A of the Act was conducted in the business premises of assessee on 13/08/2013 to 14/08/2013. During the course of survey, statement on oath of Mr. Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Director of assessee Company was recorded and during the course of statement, he accepted following purchases as bogus purchases and offered the same for taxation in respective assessment years

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 133A of the Act was conducted in the business premises of assessee on 13/08/2013 to 14/08/2013. During the course of survey, statement on oath of Mr. Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Director of assessee Company was recorded and during the course of statement, he accepted following purchases as bogus purchases and offered the same for taxation in respective assessment years

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. RDS CONSTRUCTION CO.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No 134/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kolhapur. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Rds Construction Co., 233/3, Malati Towers, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur. Pin-416 001 Pan : Aabfr4457M ……""यथ" / Respondent

133A of the Act was carried out at the premises of assessee on 04.01.2013. Pursuant to the survey, the assessee vide letter dated 08.01.2013 offered additional income for assessment year 2008-09, 2010-11 to 2012-13 of Rs.5,17,85,419/-. The basis for offering additional income was party wise list of purchases which were furnished by assessee along

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

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1302/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Chetas Control Systems Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.1, S.No.8+9, Chetas House, Shree Sidhatek Hsg. Society, Sutarwadi, Pashan, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411021 Pan: Aaacc7437N अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Gawli प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : None घोषणा की तारीख / सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2018

133A of the Act was conducted in the business premises of assessee. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings after noting the details of purchases made from Aquatech Solutions Pvt. Ltd., expenditure for construction of laboratory held as capital expenditure and after allowing 10% depreciation at ₹ 13 lakhs, balance amount of ₹ 1,17,00,000/- was capitalized

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

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

133A of the Act was carried on 15.02.2013 in the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer in the course of survey action had recorded statement of Shri Mafatlal N Shah u/s 131 of the Act. In the statement the Assessing Officer confronted the partner of the assessee regarding purchases of Rs.88,76,319/- from the parties M/s. Raj Metal

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

133A of the Act was carried on 15.02.2013 in the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer in the course of survey action had recorded statement of Shri Mafatlal N Shah u/s 131 of the Act. In the statement the Assessing Officer confronted the partner of the assessee regarding purchases of Rs.88,76,319/- from the parties M/s. Raj Metal

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

133A of the Act was carried on 15.02.2013 in the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer in the course of survey action had recorded statement of Shri Mafatlal N Shah u/s 131 of the Act. In the statement the Assessing Officer confronted the partner of the assessee regarding purchases of Rs.88,76,319/- from the parties M/s. Raj Metal

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

133A of the Act was carried on 15.02.2013 in the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer in the course of survey action had recorded statement of Shri Mafatlal N Shah u/s 131 of the Act. In the statement the Assessing Officer confronted the partner of the assessee regarding purchases of Rs.88,76,319/- from the parties M/s. Raj Metal

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

133A of the Act was carried on 15.02.2013 in the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer in the course of survey action had recorded statement of Shri Mafatlal N Shah u/s 131 of the Act. In the statement the Assessing Officer confronted the partner of the assessee regarding purchases of Rs.88,76,319/- from the parties M/s. Raj Metal

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

133A of the Act was carried on 15.02.2013 in the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer in the course of survey action had recorded statement of Shri Mafatlal N Shah u/s 131 of the Act. In the statement the Assessing Officer confronted the partner of the assessee regarding purchases of Rs.88,76,319/- from the parties M/s. Raj Metal

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

DCIT,JALGAON vs. MAHARASHTRA SOLVENT EXTRACTION P.LTD, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1434/Pun/2013 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year : 2010-11

purchase of Soya seeds on behalf of the assessee. The total commission paid to the said HUF was Rs. 8,80,047/-. The first issue which is raised against the assessee is that it had not proved services rendered by the HUF. However, we find that similar services were availed by the assessee in earlier years and no disallowance

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1,, JALGAON vs. M/S. MAHARASHTRA SOLVENT EXTRACTION PVT. LTD.,, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1434/Pun/2013 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year : 2010-11

purchase of Soya seeds on behalf of the assessee. The total commission paid to the said HUF was Rs. 8,80,047/-. The first issue which is raised against the assessee is that it had not proved services rendered by the HUF. However, we find that similar services were availed by the assessee in earlier years and no disallowance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. RDS CONSTRUCTION CO.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2731 To 2733/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Kolhapur. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Rds Construction Co., 233/3, Malati Towers, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur-416003. Pan : Aabfr4457M ……""यथ" / Respondent Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Ghai Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Three Appeals Under Consideration. Ita Nos.2731 & 2732/Pun/2016 Filed By The Revenue Are Against The Common Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Dated 26.09.2016 U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2010-11 Respectively.

bogus purchases. The assessee offered Rs.2,22,00,712/- as additional income for the assessment year 2008-09 and Rs.1,61,93,716/- for the assessment year 2010-11. During the assessment years under consideration, the assessee complied with the said declaration. Accordingly, the reassessment was completed accepting the revised income filed by the assessee. Thus, the reassessment has become