KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

purchased and sold scripts at a price which are very less as compared to the market price on that particular day. During the FY 2014-15, M/s Kay Power and Paper Ltd. has made the transactions and booked the profit of Rs. 2,67,66,250/-. During the F.Y 2014-15, M/s Kay Power and Paper Ltd has made such

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

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

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

148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2022. The assessee in response to the same filed its return on 27.04.2022 declaring total income of Rs.48,59,880/- after adjusting year-wise losses of Rs.1,94,50,981/-. 5. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had shown total sales of Rs.224

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

148 was issued to the assessee on 28/3/2013 and was served on it. The AO has recorded reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment before issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act. 4. Considering the quantum of bogus purchases and circumstances of the case, survey under section

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

148 was issued to the assessee on 28/3/2013 and was served on it. The AO has recorded reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment before issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act. 4. Considering the quantum of bogus purchases and circumstances of the case, survey under section

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

purchases as bogus in the hands of assessee. The assessment in the case of assessee was reopened on the basis of statement recorded during the course of investigation by the Sales Tax Department. 15. The assessee in the present case before us after filing the return of income in response to notice issued under section 148

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

purchases as bogus in the hands of assessee. The assessment in the case of assessee was reopened on the basis of statement recorded during the course of investigation by the Sales Tax Department. 15. The assessee in the present case before us after filing the return of income in response to notice issued under section 148

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

purchases as bogus in the hands of assessee. The assessment in the case of assessee was reopened on the basis of statement recorded during the course of investigation by the Sales Tax Department. 15. The assessee in the present case before us after filing the return of income in response to notice issued under section 148

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

purchases as bogus in the hands of assessee. The assessment in the case of assessee was reopened on the basis of statement recorded during the course of investigation by the Sales Tax Department. 15. The assessee in the present case before us after filing the return of income in response to notice issued under section 148

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

purchases as bogus in the hands of assessee. The assessment in the case of assessee was reopened on the basis of statement recorded during the course of investigation by the Sales Tax Department. 15. The assessee in the present case before us after filing the return of income in response to notice issued under section 148

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

purchases as bogus in the hands of assessee. The assessment in the case of assessee was reopened on the basis of statement recorded during the course of investigation by the Sales Tax Department. 15. The assessee in the present case before us after filing the return of income in response to notice issued under section 148

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

purchases as bogus in the hands of assessee. The assessment in the case of assessee was reopened on the basis of statement recorded during the course of investigation by the Sales Tax Department. 15. The assessee in the present case before us after filing the return of income in response to notice issued under section 148

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

purchases as bogus in the hands of assessee. The assessment in the case of assessee was reopened on the basis of statement recorded during the course of investigation by the Sales Tax Department. 15. The assessee in the present case before us after filing the return of income in response to notice issued under section 148

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

purchases as bogus in the hands of assessee. The assessment in the case of assessee was reopened on the basis of statement recorded during the course of investigation by the Sales Tax Department. 15. The assessee in the present case before us after filing the return of income in response to notice issued under section 148

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

purchases as bogus in the hands of assessee. The assessment in the case of assessee was reopened on the basis of statement recorded during the course of investigation by the Sales Tax Department. 15. The assessee in the present case before us after filing the return of income in response to notice issued under section 148

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

purchases as bogus in the hands of assessee. The assessment in the case of assessee was reopened on the basis of statement recorded during the course of investigation by the Sales Tax Department. 15. The assessee in the present case before us after filing the return of income in response to notice issued under section 148

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

purchases as bogus in the hands of assessee. The assessment in the case of assessee was reopened on the basis of statement recorded during the course of investigation by the Sales Tax Department. 15. The assessee in the present case before us after filing the return of income in response to notice issued under section 148

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. RDS CONSTRUCTION CO.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No 134/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kolhapur. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Rds Construction Co., 233/3, Malati Towers, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur. Pin-416 001 Pan : Aabfr4457M ……""यथ" / Respondent

bogus. Mr. Shinde has simply said that some of the purchases were not supported by delivery challans,. inspection reports, etc. Further, he asked time to produce evidence and eventually, he stated that he was not able to substantiate all the purchases and in that case, credit may be allowed to him for the disclosure of additional income made during