CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

2% was disallowed and that also out of only of URD purchases made in cash. Further, neither any reasoning nor any basis for such conclusion is apparent from the record. Moreover as stated above, even if the assessing officer had not doubted sales declared by the assessee, then a reasonable inference can be drawn that the assessee has purchased goods

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

2% was disallowed and that also out of only of URD purchases made in cash. Further, neither any reasoning nor any basis for such conclusion is apparent from the record. Moreover as stated above, even if the assessing officer had not doubted sales declared by the assessee, then a reasonable inference can be drawn that the assessee has purchased goods

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

2% was disallowed and that also out of only of URD purchases made in cash. Further, neither any reasoning nor any basis for such conclusion is apparent from the record. Moreover as stated above, even if the assessing officer had not doubted sales declared by the assessee, then a reasonable inference can be drawn that the assessee has purchased goods

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

2% was disallowed and that also out of only of URD purchases made in cash. Further, neither any reasoning nor any basis for such conclusion is apparent from the record. Moreover as stated above, even if the assessing officer had not doubted sales declared by the assessee, then a reasonable inference can be drawn that the assessee has purchased goods

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

2% was disallowed and that also out of only of URD purchases made in cash. Further, neither any reasoning nor any basis for such conclusion is apparent from the record. Moreover as stated above, even if the assessing officer had not doubted sales declared by the assessee, then a reasonable inference can be drawn that the assessee has purchased goods

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

2% was disallowed and that also out of only of URD purchases made in cash. Further, neither any reasoning nor any basis for such conclusion is apparent from the record. Moreover as stated above, even if the assessing officer had not doubted sales declared by the assessee, then a reasonable inference can be drawn that the assessee has purchased goods

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

2% was disallowed and that also out of only of URD purchases made in cash. Further, neither any reasoning nor any basis for such conclusion is apparent from the record. Moreover as stated above, even if the assessing officer had not doubted sales declared by the assessee, then a reasonable inference can be drawn that the assessee has purchased goods

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SATARA vs. KAY BOUVET ENGINEERING LIMITED, SATARA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and both the COs filed\nby the assessee are dismissed

2% on alleged bogus purchases, which were claimed to be from non-existent entities. The assessee had filed supporting documents for these purchases.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition. The statement recorded during the survey u/s 133A of a third party does not have evidentiary value, especially when the assessee has provided

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

M/S. SHI vs. HAKTI SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,,OSMANABADVS.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, NANDED

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Shivshakti Shetkari Vs. Dcit, Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Circle-3, Limited, Nanded Washi Dist., Osmanabad. Pan : Aacts1082Q Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short „the Act‟. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee‟s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2. We notice at the outset that the instant appeal suffers from 835 days delay in filing, which has been stated to be attributable to various communication gaps as well

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

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

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

2. These cases relates to hawala purchases wherein the Assessing Officer made 100% addition on such purchases and the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the same. For sake of convenience, we would take facts as appearing in assessment year 2009-10. A.Y.2009-10 3. The facts in this case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing

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

2. These cases relates to hawala purchases wherein the Assessing Officer made 100% addition on such purchases and the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the same. For sake of convenience, we would take facts as appearing in assessment year 2009-10. A.Y.2009-10 3. The facts in this case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing

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