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

142(1) of\nthe Act along with a questionnaire which was duly served on the assessee, in\nresponse to which the AR of the assessee filed the requisite details from time to\ntime. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on\n31.01.2014 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.13,17,230/- and\nagricultural

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

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

sections": [ "143(1)", "143(2)", "142(1)", "132", "133(6)", "131", "147", "143(3)", "69A", "271AAC(1)", "28", "69", "69C" ], "issues": "Whether additions made by the AO 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

142(1) and 143(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee asking the assessee to explain as to why originally filed return of income should not be treated as filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. The assessee was also asked to furnish the details of purchases, sales, transport bills, octroi receipts

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

142(1) and 143(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee asking the assessee to explain as to why originally filed return of income should not be treated as filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. The assessee was also asked to furnish the details of purchases, sales, transport bills, octroi receipts

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

142(1) and 143(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee asking the assessee to explain as to why originally filed return of income should not be treated as filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. The assessee was also asked to furnish the details of purchases, sales, transport bills, octroi receipts

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

142(1) and 143(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee asking the assessee to explain as to why originally filed return of income should not be treated as filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. The assessee was also asked to furnish the details of purchases, sales, transport bills, octroi receipts

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

142(1) and 143(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee asking the assessee to explain as to why originally filed return of income should not be treated as filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. The assessee was also asked to furnish the details of purchases, sales, transport bills, octroi receipts

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

142(1) and 143(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee asking the assessee to explain as to why originally filed return of income should not be treated as filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. The assessee was also asked to furnish the details of purchases, sales, transport bills, octroi receipts

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

142(1) and 143(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee asking the assessee to explain as to why originally filed return of income should not be treated as filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. The assessee was also asked to furnish the details of purchases, sales, transport bills, octroi receipts

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

142(1) and 143(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee asking the assessee to explain as to why originally filed return of income should not be treated as filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. The assessee was also asked to furnish the details of purchases, sales, transport bills, octroi receipts

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

142(1) and 143(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee asking the assessee to explain as to why originally filed return of income should not be treated as filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. The assessee was also asked to furnish the details of purchases, sales, transport bills, octroi receipts

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

142(1) and 143(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee asking the assessee to explain as to why originally filed return of income should not be treated as filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. The assessee was also asked to furnish the details of purchases, sales, transport bills, octroi receipts

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

142(1) and 143(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee asking the assessee to explain as to why originally filed return of income should not be treated as filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. The assessee was also asked to furnish the details of purchases, sales, transport bills, octroi receipts

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

142(1) and 143(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee asking the assessee to explain as to why originally filed return of income should not be treated as filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. The assessee was also asked to furnish the details of purchases, sales, transport bills, octroi receipts

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 TAX, AURANGABAD vs. RATHI STEEL AND METAL PVT. LTD, JALNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Dcit, Aurangabad Rathi Steel & Metal Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.F12, Addl Midc Area, Phase-Ii, Vs. Jalna – 431203 Pan : Aabcr5546A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anand Partani Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - Cit Date Of Hearing : 01-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

142(1) of the Act 2 were issued and served on the assessee in response to which the AR of the assessee filed the requisite details from time to time. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer observed that the DDIT(Inv) in the appraisal report had stated that information was received from the GST Department regarding

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. TAPARIA TOOLS LIMITED, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1337/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

142(1) of the Act, re- assessment proceedings were carried out and assessee was asked to file the details as called for in the notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act on 24.02.2023 to which necessary compliances made. Ld. AO observed that out of the total sales CO No.30/PUN/2025 Taparia Tools Limited made by the vendor SKTPL, 97.8% sales

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

142 to 145/PUN/2016 for assessment year 2007-08 to 2010-11 and ITA No.146 & 147/PUN/2016 for assessment year 2011-12 & 2012-13, order dated on 17.01.2018 wherein contents of the statement of Mr. Shinde were also noted in which there was no mention of purchases from M/s. Manvir Metal Pvt. Ltd. not any clear cut admission of said purchases being