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

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

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

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

purchases as bogus.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "143(1)(a)", "143(3)", "133A", "131", "148", "68", "44AB", "132(4)" ], "issues": "Whether

PRO-ARC WELDINGS & CUTTING SYSTEMS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 10,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2365/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Pro-Arc Welding & Cutting Systems Pvt. Ltd., Gat No.246, Chimbali, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Khed, Pune – 412501 …. Pan: Aaecp1289M Vs.

bogus purchases and secondly, the assessee has also challenged the invoking of jurisdiction under section 147 / 148 of the Act. 4. Briefly

ABDUL REHMAN ABDUL RAUF CHOUDHARY,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 9(1),, PUNE

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

148 of the Act issued by the Assessing Officer and no evidence in support of bogus purchases bills was furnished during the assessment proceedings. 6. Aggrieved with the said decision of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeals before the Tribunal by raising the common grounds in both the appeals (extracted above). 7. Before us, at the outset

ABDUL REHMAN ABDUL RAUF CHOUDHARY,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 9(1),, PUNE

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

148 of the Act issued by the Assessing Officer and no evidence in support of bogus purchases bills was furnished during the assessment proceedings. 6. Aggrieved with the said decision of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeals before the Tribunal by raising the common grounds in both the appeals (extracted above). 7. Before us, at the outset

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 popularly known on “Hawala Purchases”. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.45,400/- as 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 popularly known on “Hawala Purchases”. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.45,400/- as purchases

SAYALI ENGINEERING PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -10, , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

148 of the Act for reopening of the assessment. As the assessee did not reply to the said notice, the Assessing Officer passed the reassessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act and added the addition of Rs.19,65,109/- on account of bogus purchases to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved with the said decision

HEM KIRAN DIESELS,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -KOLHAPUR , KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1088/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Hem Kiran Diesels, 1227, E, Rajaram Road, Kolhapur-416008. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aabfh6497B बनाम / V/S. Acit, Central Circle-Kolhapur, ……""यथ" / Respondent Kolhapur. Assessee By : Shri M. K. Kulkarni Revenue By : Shri M.K. Verma सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-11, Pune Dated 14.03.2018 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Effective Ground Raised By The Assessee Is As Under :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Estimating The Income On Hawala Purchases As Reported By The Sales-Tax Department Equal To 30% As Against 10% Estimated By Various Appellate Authorities. The Estimation @ 30% Be Replaced By 10% To Do Justice To The Assessee.” 3. Briefly, The Relevant Facts Include That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Repairs To Automobiles & Particularly Cater To The Diesel Engines Repairs, Like Nozzles, Pumps Etc. & Repair Workshops Of Four

148 of the Act for reopening of the assessment. As the assessee did not reply to the said notice, the Assessing Officer passed the reassessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act and added the addition of Rs.12,21,478/- on account of bogus purchases to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved with the said decision

M/S. TIRUPATI SALES,,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

148 of the Act and added the addition of Rs.1,30,86,345/- for the assessment year 2009-10 and Rs.1,61,84,077/- for the assessment year 2010-11 on account of bogus purchases to the total income of the assessee respectively. Aggrieved with the said decision of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter before

M/S. TIRUPATI SALES,,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

148 of the Act and added the addition of Rs.1,30,86,345/- for the assessment year 2009-10 and Rs.1,61,84,077/- for the assessment year 2010-11 on account of bogus purchases to the total income of the assessee respectively. Aggrieved with the said decision of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter before

KEVAL KADU DEORE,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

148 of the Act. Thereafter, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. AO has noted that there was no compliance to the notice. Consequently, assessment was framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act vide order dt. 25.03.2015 and the total income was determined at Rs.1,71,93,354/-. Aggrieved by the order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. KEVAL KADU DEORE,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

148 of the Act. Thereafter, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. AO has noted that there was no compliance to the notice. Consequently, assessment was framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act vide order dt. 25.03.2015 and the total income was determined at Rs.1,71,93,354/-. Aggrieved by the order

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

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

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