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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-1, Nashik, is not justified in confirming the disallowance of purchases to the extent of 25%, particularly when the AO has not allowed the appellant the cross- examination of the witness of the revenue i.e. parties from

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

3. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-1, Nashik, is not justified in confirming the disallowance of purchases to the extent of 25%, particularly when the AO has not allowed the appellant the cross- examination of the witness of the revenue i.e. parties from

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

3. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-1, Nashik, is not justified in confirming the disallowance of purchases to the extent of 25%, particularly when the AO has not allowed the appellant the cross- examination of the witness of the revenue i.e. parties from

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

3. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-1, Nashik, is not justified in confirming the disallowance of purchases to the extent of 25%, particularly when the AO has not allowed the appellant the cross- examination of the witness of the revenue i.e. parties from

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

3. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-1, Nashik, is not justified in confirming the disallowance of purchases to the extent of 25%, particularly when the AO has not allowed the appellant the cross- examination of the witness of the revenue i.e. parties from

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

3. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-1, Nashik, is not justified in confirming the disallowance of purchases to the extent of 25%, particularly when the AO has not allowed the appellant the cross- examination of the witness of the revenue i.e. parties from

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

3. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-1, Nashik, is not justified in confirming the disallowance of purchases to the extent of 25%, particularly when the AO has not allowed the appellant the cross- examination of the witness of the revenue i.e. parties from

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

3. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-1, Nashik, is not justified in confirming the disallowance of purchases to the extent of 25%, particularly when the AO has not allowed the appellant the cross- examination of the witness of the revenue i.e. parties from

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

3. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-1, Nashik, is not justified in confirming the disallowance of purchases to the extent of 25%, particularly when the AO has not allowed the appellant the cross- examination of the witness of the revenue i.e. parties from

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

3. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-1, Nashik, is not justified in confirming the disallowance of purchases to the extent of 25%, particularly when the AO has not allowed the appellant the cross- examination of the witness of the revenue i.e. parties from

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

3. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-1, Nashik, is not justified in confirming the disallowance of purchases to the extent of 25%, particularly when the AO has not allowed the appellant the cross- examination of the witness of the revenue i.e. parties from

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

3. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-1, Nashik, is not justified in confirming the disallowance of purchases to the extent of 25%, particularly when the AO has not allowed the appellant the cross- examination of the witness of the revenue i.e. parties from