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

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

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

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

145 taxmann.com 414 (Bombay HC) 2. CIT Vs. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2013) taxmann.com 384 (Bombay HC) 3. Manoj Sharma Vs. ITO (2019) 103 taxmann.com 104 (Delhi Trib.) 8. Further, ld. Counsel for the assessee concluded his arguments praying for affirming the order of ld.CIT(A) stating the following: “a. In light of the above submissions, it is prayed

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

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. 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

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

145 / PUN / 2016 and ITA No. 146 – 147 / PUN /2016, ITAT Pune. (Refer Page No. 133 – 148 of Paperbook for Case Laws) The following grounds of appeal were raised reproduced below: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in allowing deduction u/s.80IA

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

145 / PUN / 2016 and ITA No. 146 – 147 / PUN /2016, ITAT Pune. (Refer Page No. 133 – 148 of Paperbook for Case Laws) The following grounds of appeal were raised reproduced below: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in allowing deduction u/s.80IA

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

145 / PUN / 2016 and ITA No. 146 – 147 / PUN /2016, ITAT Pune. (Refer Page No. 133 – 148 of Paperbook for Case Laws) The following grounds of appeal were raised reproduced below: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in allowing deduction u/s.80IA

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, KOLHAPUR vs. VIJAYKUMAR RAJARAM SHAH,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

145 / PUN / 2016 and ITA No. 146 – 147 / PUN /2016, ITAT Pune. (Refer Page No. 133 – 148 of Paperbook for Case Laws) The following grounds of appeal were raised reproduced below: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in allowing deduction u/s.80IA

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

145 / PUN / 2016 and ITA No. 146 – 147 / PUN /2016, ITAT Pune. (Refer Page No. 133 – 148 of Paperbook for Case Laws) The following grounds of appeal were raised reproduced below: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in allowing deduction u/s.80IA