M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raising an interference to that effect. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shah & Bros Vs CIT (37 ITR 271] held that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. Since the transaction from the assessee is genuine no addition or disallowance can be made on this account.” 5

M/S. SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1778 To 1782/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa(Bk), Pune – 411 048. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaccs3670F

section 143(2) after filing the return of income which had rendered the Assessment Order bad in law liable to be set aside. 3. The CIT(A) erred in not deleting the disallowance of Rs.20,31,158/- out of purchases though the purchases were fully verifiable and the payments were made through bank. 4. Without prejudice to Ground

M/S. SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1778 To 1782/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa(Bk), Pune – 411 048. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaccs3670F

section 143(2) after filing the return of income which had rendered the Assessment Order bad in law liable to be set aside. 3. The CIT(A) erred in not deleting the disallowance of Rs.20,31,158/- out of purchases though the purchases were fully verifiable and the payments were made through bank. 4. Without prejudice to Ground

M/S. SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1778 To 1782/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa(Bk), Pune – 411 048. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaccs3670F

section 143(2) after filing the return of income which had rendered the Assessment Order bad in law liable to be set aside. 3. The CIT(A) erred in not deleting the disallowance of Rs.20,31,158/- out of purchases though the purchases were fully verifiable and the payments were made through bank. 4. Without prejudice to Ground

M/S. SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1778 To 1782/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa(Bk), Pune – 411 048. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaccs3670F

section 143(2) after filing the return of income which had rendered the Assessment Order bad in law liable to be set aside. 3. The CIT(A) erred in not deleting the disallowance of Rs.20,31,158/- out of purchases though the purchases were fully verifiable and the payments were made through bank. 4. Without prejudice to Ground

M/S. SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1778 To 1782/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa(Bk), Pune – 411 048. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaccs3670F

section 143(2) after filing the return of income which had rendered the Assessment Order bad in law liable to be set aside. 3. The CIT(A) erred in not deleting the disallowance of Rs.20,31,158/- out of purchases though the purchases were fully verifiable and the payments were made through bank. 4. Without prejudice to Ground

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

bogus\ncompanies?\nAns: The accommodation entries by way of unsecured loans were taken to\npurchase properties. I did not have the amounts in the bank accounts but\nhad the cash. Therefore to purchase the properties, I had to do this\nexercise.\n6\nITA No.1178/PUN/2023\nITA No.2017/PUN/2024\nThe return of income for AY 2011-12 filed on 29/09/2011 by the assessee

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

bogus\ncompanies?\nAns: The accommodation entries by way of unsecured loans were taken to\npurchase properties. I did not have the amounts in the bank accounts but\nhad the cash. Therefore to purchase the properties, I had to do this\nexercise.\n6\nITA No.1178/PUN/2023\nITA No.2017/PUN/2024\nThe return of income for AY 2011-12 filed on 29/09/2011 by the assessee

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)

139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 30.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.11,36,670/- for the impugned assessment year. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of the assessee on 06.11.2019. In response to the notice u/s 153A of the Act issued

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANVEL CIRCLE PANVEL vs. OUTABOX MEDIA SOLUTIONS LLP, GHATKOPAR MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

139, after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2) of section 115WE or sub-section (2) of section 143 or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier; (b) where he has made no such return, after the expiry

DILIP BABURAO DALVI,,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 (1),, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Dilip Baburao Dalvi Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), 33, Shivaji Housing Society, Kolhapur 12Th Lane Rajarampuri, Kolhapur – 416008 Pan : Abepd8027H Appellant Respondent

139(1) of the Act, which was 2 Dilip B Dalvi processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the AO received certain information from DGIT(Inv), Pune about the sales tax hawala racket. On the basis of such information, the AO recorded reasons on 19-06-2013 and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. During the course

LAXMIKANT RAMNIWAS BALDAWA,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2307/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2 Shri Laxmikant Ramniwas Baldawa 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the estimate made by the A.O, @ 12.5% of unverifiable purchases

GOLE PRECISION TOOLS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee are partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

139 as returns in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. These letters have been filed by assessee after 11 months from the date of issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Vide same letters the assessee requested the Assessing Officer to provide reasons recorded for reopening. As is apparent from record the assessment order was passed

GOLE PRECISION TOOLS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee are partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

139 as returns in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. These letters have been filed by assessee after 11 months from the date of issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Vide same letters the assessee requested the Assessing Officer to provide reasons recorded for reopening. As is apparent from record the assessment order was passed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. KAKADE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

bogus purchases in returned income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer while computing total income has mentioned the amount of returned income as Rs.12,32,71,031/- which includes the amount declared in the return of income filed u/s.139(1) of the Act plus the amount declared in the statement recorded u/s. 131 of the Act on 21.01.2011. The ld. DR contended

RAMESH HARIBHAU GAWALI,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

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

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

139 ... ": 3. In the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports Vs. Addl.CIT (2012) 20 taxmann.com 244 (Visakhatatnam) it was held by Special Bench of ITAT, Vishakhapatnam, that the provisions of section 40 (a)(ia) of the Act would apply only to the amount which remained payable at the end of the relevant financial year and could not be invoked to disallow

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

139 or in reasons to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts, necessary for his assessment for that assessment year." From the above provision, it is evident that what is required from A.Y. 1989-90 for issuing notice for reassessment is that the A.O. should

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

bogus; when no authority to such effect existed with the learned TPO. The learned DRP erred in not deleting the entire addition proposed by the learned TPO on the above analogy as such and further erred in not proceeding with the matter instead of leaving the matter at that point, considering the scope of powers u/s 144C