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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. ASHAPURA RUBBER UDYOG,, NASHIK

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act in all the three years under consideration. The Assessing Officer made additions i.e. (i) Rs.49,67,430/- for the assessment year 2009-10, (ii) Rs.68,43,018/- for the assessment year 2010-11 and (iii) Rs.1,05,84,505/- for the assessment year 2011-12. The Assessing Officer made the entire amounts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. ASHAPURA RUBBER UDYOG,, NASHIK

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act in all the three years under consideration. The Assessing Officer made additions i.e. (i) Rs.49,67,430/- for the assessment year 2009-10, (ii) Rs.68,43,018/- for the assessment year 2010-11 and (iii) Rs.1,05,84,505/- for the assessment year 2011-12. The Assessing Officer made the entire amounts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. ASHAPURA RUBBER UDYOG,, NASHIK

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act in all the three years under consideration. The Assessing Officer made additions i.e. (i) Rs.49,67,430/- for the assessment year 2009-10, (ii) Rs.68,43,018/- for the assessment year 2010-11 and (iii) Rs.1,05,84,505/- for the assessment year 2011-12. The Assessing Officer made the entire amounts

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

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the “Act”. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. We first of all advert Revenue’s cross three appeals ITA Nos. 6 to 8/PUN/2020 for assessment year 2009-10 to 2011-12. A perusal of these case files indicates that the tax effect involved therein is Rs.13,65,776/-, Rs.38

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

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the “Act”. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. We first of all advert Revenue’s cross three appeals ITA Nos. 6 to 8/PUN/2020 for assessment year 2009-10 to 2011-12. A perusal of these case files indicates that the tax effect involved therein is Rs.13,65,776/-, Rs.38

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

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the “Act”. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. We first of all advert Revenue’s cross three appeals ITA Nos. 6 to 8/PUN/2020 for assessment year 2009-10 to 2011-12. A perusal of these case files indicates that the tax effect involved therein is Rs.13,65,776/-, Rs.38

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

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the “Act”. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. We first of all advert Revenue’s cross three appeals ITA Nos. 6 to 8/PUN/2020 for assessment year 2009-10 to 2011-12. A perusal of these case files indicates that the tax effect involved therein is Rs.13,65,776/-, Rs.38

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

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the “Act”. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. We first of all advert Revenue’s cross three appeals ITA Nos. 6 to 8/PUN/2020 for assessment year 2009-10 to 2011-12. A perusal of these case files indicates that the tax effect involved therein is Rs.13,65,776/-, Rs.38

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

147 of the Act on the very same issue. Since it is held that the entire purchases cannot be added to the total income of the assessee and only a percentage of such purchases being the profit element embedded in it should be added, therefore, following the similar corollary, the entire amount of Rs.17,42,000/- in our opinion cannot

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

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

section 69C of the Act which was not considered by the appellate authority. However, in the case of the assessee the addition for non-genuine purchases was not made u/s 69C of the Act. The purchases were added to the income from business and profession of the assessee company. He further submitted that the facts of the instant case

M/S. SHAH BROTHERS,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(1),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

section 147 is not sustainable in law. The consequent assessment also not sustainable and it be quashed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) were not justified in confirming the addition of Bogus Purchases

M/S. SHAH BROTHERS,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(1),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

section 147 is not sustainable in law. The consequent assessment also not sustainable and it be quashed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) were not justified in confirming the addition of Bogus Purchases

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

bogus purchases? 3. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter any of the above grounds of appeal. 7. The Ld. DR heavily relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC without appreciating the facts properly has reduced the addition to Rs.15,97,740/- as against Rs.84,32,503/- made

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

bogus purchases? 3. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter any of the above grounds of appeal. 7. The Ld. DR heavily relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC without appreciating the facts properly has reduced the addition to Rs.15,97,740/- as against Rs.84,32,503/- made

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

bogus purchases? 3. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter any of the above grounds of appeal. 7. The Ld. DR heavily relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC without appreciating the facts properly has reduced the addition to Rs.15,97,740/- as against Rs.84,32,503/- made

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

bogus purchases? 3. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter any of the above grounds of appeal. 7. The Ld. DR heavily relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC without appreciating the facts properly has reduced the addition to Rs.15,97,740/- as against Rs.84,32,503/- made