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

1) of the IT Act, 1961 was conducted on 04/11/2017 in the\ncase of Ashok B Jain & Others. The case of Shri Manoj M Chhajed is one\nof the cases belonging to Ashok B Jain & Others group. During the course\nof search conducted at the residential premises of the assessee on\n04/11/2017 located at A8-601, Karishma Housing Society, Kothrud

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

b) The genuineness of the corresponding sales shown by the assessee company against such purchases. (c) Reasonable estimation of net profit on bogus purchase taking into account the facts and circumstances of case and finding and also in view of the decisions of the various Courts and Tribunals on the issue.” 7. From the above extract, it is evident that

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

b) The genuineness of the corresponding sales shown by the assessee company against such purchases. (c) Reasonable estimation of net profit on bogus purchase taking into account the facts and circumstances of case and finding and also in view of the decisions of the various Courts and Tribunals on the issue.” 7. From the above extract, it is evident that

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

b) The genuineness of the corresponding sales shown by the assessee company against such purchases. (c) Reasonable estimation of net profit on bogus purchase taking into account the facts and circumstances of case and finding and also in view of the decisions of the various Courts and Tribunals on the issue.” 7. From the above extract, it is evident that

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

b) The genuineness of the corresponding sales shown by the assessee company against such purchases. (c) Reasonable estimation of net profit on bogus purchase taking into account the facts and circumstances of case and finding and also in view of the decisions of the various Courts and Tribunals on the issue.” 7. From the above extract, it is evident that

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

b) The genuineness of the corresponding sales shown by the assessee company against such purchases. (c) Reasonable estimation of net profit on bogus purchase taking into account the facts and circumstances of case and finding and also in view of the decisions of the various Courts and Tribunals on the issue.” 7. From the above extract, it is evident that

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

b) The genuineness of the corresponding sales shown by the assessee company against such purchases. (c) Reasonable estimation of net profit on bogus purchase taking into account the facts and circumstances of case and finding and also in view of the decisions of the various Courts and Tribunals on the issue.” 7. From the above extract, it is evident that

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

b) The genuineness of the corresponding sales shown by the assessee company against such purchases. (c) Reasonable estimation of net profit on bogus purchase taking into account the facts and circumstances of case and finding and also in view of the decisions of the various Courts and Tribunals on the issue.” 7. From the above extract, it is evident that

ALNESH AKIL SOMJI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

b) of the Act on account of interest paid on housing loan amounting to Rs.2 lakh resulting in loss of Rs.2 lakh which has been set off against the other income of the previous year. He, therefore, asked the assessee to furnish evidence in respect of housing loan availed, copy of the loan account statement and the certificate from

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

1,00,00,000 2,37,00,000 Total 6,27,20,500 D. The ld. CIT(A) on analysis of the notings at page no.2, 3, 13, 22 and 168 of bundle no.1 held that there is evidence of payment of consideration in cash over and above the apparent consideration at the time of purchase of property at Paud

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

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

bogus companies? Ans: The accommodation entries by way of unsecured loans were taken to purchase properties. I did not have the amounts in the bank accounts but had the cash. Therefore to purchase the properties, I had to do this exercise. 6 ITA No.1178/PUN/2023 ITA No.2017/PUN/2024 The return of income for AY 2011-12 filed on 29/09/2011 by the assessee

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.

b) of the Act vide assessment order dated 27.12.2011 at Rs.12,69,30,330/-. The order was rectified under section 154 of the Act on 02.02.2012 and the revised assessed income was Rs.12,08,15,377/-. Survey action under section 133A of the Act was conducted on the business premises of assessee and group cases on 04.01.2013. Statement on oath

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.

b) of the Act vide assessment order dated 27.12.2011 at Rs.12,69,30,330/-. The order was rectified under section 154 of the Act on 02.02.2012 and the revised assessed income was Rs.12,08,15,377/-. Survey action under section 133A of the Act was conducted on the business premises of assessee and group cases on 04.01.2013. Statement on oath

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.

b) of the Act vide assessment order dated 27.12.2011 at Rs.12,69,30,330/-. The order was rectified under section 154 of the Act on 02.02.2012 and the revised assessed income was Rs.12,08,15,377/-. Survey action under section 133A of the Act was conducted on the business premises of assessee and group cases on 04.01.2013. Statement on oath

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.

b) of the Act vide assessment order dated 27.12.2011 at Rs.12,69,30,330/-. The order was rectified under section 154 of the Act on 02.02.2012 and the revised assessed income was Rs.12,08,15,377/-. Survey action under section 133A of the Act was conducted on the business premises of assessee and group cases on 04.01.2013. Statement on oath

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.

b) of the Act vide assessment order dated 27.12.2011 at Rs.12,69,30,330/-. The order was rectified under section 154 of the Act on 02.02.2012 and the revised assessed income was Rs.12,08,15,377/-. Survey action under section 133A of the Act was conducted on the business premises of assessee and group cases on 04.01.2013. Statement on oath

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.

b) of the Act vide assessment order dated 27.12.2011 at Rs.12,69,30,330/-. The order was rectified under section 154 of the Act on 02.02.2012 and the revised assessed income was Rs.12,08,15,377/-. Survey action under section 133A of the Act was conducted on the business premises of assessee and group cases on 04.01.2013. Statement on oath