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

145 taxmann.com 546. 4. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in assessing the gross profit margin (GPM) of the appellant at 18% on alleged HAWALA purchases instead of a reasonable lower plausible GPM. Appellant contends that, in business of trading of goods and assuming, such huge 18% GPM on alleged HAWALA Purchases is abnormal

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

145 taxmann.com 546. 4. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in assessing the gross profit margin (GPM) of the appellant at 18% on alleged HAWALA purchases instead of a reasonable lower plausible GPM. Appellant contends that, in business of trading of goods and assuming, such huge 18% GPM on alleged HAWALA Purchases is abnormal

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

145 taxmann.com 546. 4. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in assessing the gross profit margin (GPM) of the appellant at 18% on alleged HAWALA purchases instead of a reasonable lower plausible GPM. Appellant contends that, in business of trading of goods and assuming, such huge 18% GPM on alleged HAWALA Purchases is abnormal

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

145 taxmann.com 546. 4. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in assessing the gross profit margin (GPM) of the appellant at 18% on alleged HAWALA purchases instead of a reasonable lower plausible GPM. Appellant contends that, in business of trading of goods and assuming, such huge 18% GPM on alleged HAWALA Purchases is abnormal

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

145 taxmann.com 546. 4. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in assessing the gross profit margin (GPM) of the appellant at 18% on alleged HAWALA purchases instead of a reasonable lower plausible GPM. Appellant contends that, in business of trading of goods and assuming, such huge 18% GPM on alleged HAWALA Purchases is abnormal

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

145 taxmann.com 546. 4. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in assessing the gross profit margin (GPM) of the appellant at 18% on alleged HAWALA purchases instead of a reasonable lower plausible GPM. Appellant contends that, in business of trading of goods and assuming, such huge 18% GPM on alleged HAWALA Purchases is abnormal

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

section 250 and Rule 46A. In view of the above it is prayed that the above submissions may kindly be taken on record and the order of the Ld.CIT(A) be quashed and disallowance made by the AO be confirmed. 7. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the assessee apart from placing reliance on the finding of ld.CIT

SANJAY SHRAWAN AGRAWAL,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

bogus parties. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice, the AO is directed to restrict the disallowance of purchases to 25% of purchases, i.e. Rs.2,81,530/-, Rs.4,16,080/- and Rs.4,05,239/- for A.Yrs. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011- 12 respectively.” Assessee requested for grant of cross examination

SANJAY SHRAWAN AGRAWAL,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

bogus parties. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice, the AO is directed to restrict the disallowance of purchases to 25% of purchases, i.e. Rs.2,81,530/-, Rs.4,16,080/- and Rs.4,05,239/- for A.Yrs. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011- 12 respectively.” Assessee requested for grant of cross examination

VIVEK SHRAWAN AGRAWAL,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

bogus parties. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice, the AO is directed to restrict the disallowance of purchases to 25% of purchases, i.e. Rs.2,81,530/-, Rs.4,16,080/- and Rs.4,05,239/- for A.Yrs. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011- 12 respectively.” Assessee requested for grant of cross examination

SANJAY SHRAWAN AGRAWAL,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

bogus parties. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice, the AO is directed to restrict the disallowance of purchases to 25% of purchases, i.e. Rs.2,81,530/-, Rs.4,16,080/- and Rs.4,05,239/- for A.Yrs. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011- 12 respectively.” Assessee requested for grant of cross examination

PURUSHOTTAM R MOGHE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

section 145(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (iii) The appellant has maintained quantitative details of opening and closing stock of purchases, consumption of raw material (principal items) and sale of finished goods both in terms of quality and value. No discrepancy in this regard has been detected during the course of special audit. (iv) It is a fact

DCIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE vs. SHRI PURUSHOTTAM R MOGHE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

section 145(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (iii) The appellant has maintained quantitative details of opening and closing stock of purchases, consumption of raw material (principal items) and sale of finished goods both in terms of quality and value. No discrepancy in this regard has been detected during the course of special audit. (iv) It is a fact

SAILAB MARKETING SERVICES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

section 145(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (iii) The appellant has maintained quantitative details of opening and closing stock of purchases, consumption of raw material (principal items) and sale of finished goods both in terms of quality and value. No discrepancy in this regard has been detected during the course of special audit. (iv) It is a fact

DCIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE vs. SHRI PURUSHOTTAM R MOGHE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

section 145(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (iii) The appellant has maintained quantitative details of opening and closing stock of purchases, consumption of raw material (principal items) and sale of finished goods both in terms of quality and value. No discrepancy in this regard has been detected during the course of special audit. (iv) It is a fact

DCIT CIRCLE- 5, PUNE vs. SAILAB MARKETING SERVICES PVT. LTD., PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

section 145(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (iii) The appellant has maintained quantitative details of opening and closing stock of purchases, consumption of raw material (principal items) and sale of finished goods both in terms of quality and value. No discrepancy in this regard has been detected during the course of special audit. (iv) It is a fact

PURUSHOTTAM R MOGHE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

section 145(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (iii) The appellant has maintained quantitative details of opening and closing stock of purchases, consumption of raw material (principal items) and sale of finished goods both in terms of quality and value. No discrepancy in this regard has been detected during the course of special audit. (iv) It is a fact

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)

purchases and consequent income arising from these transactions had already been fully disclosed and accounted for in the appellant's income tax return. 3. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the failure of the Assessing Officer to provide the appellant with a copy