ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. MAHALAXMI INFRAPROJECTS LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.142 To 145/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle-1, Kolhapur …. Vs. Mahalaxmi Infraprojects Ltd., 223/3, S-1, B, Malati Towers, E Ward, Tarabai Park, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm2170P आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.146 & 147/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle-1, Kolhapur …. Vs. Mahalaxmi Infraprojects Ltd., 223/3, S-1, B, Malati Towers, E Ward, Tarabai Park, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm2170P

bogus purchases and the Revenue is not in appeal; hence the claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act is restricted to additional income of Rs.35,98,460/- only, which merits to be allowed in the hands of assessee. In respect of grounds of appeal No.2 and 3 raised by the Revenue, the learned Authorized Representative

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. MAHALAXMI INFRAPROJECTS LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.142 To 145/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle-1, Kolhapur …. Vs. Mahalaxmi Infraprojects Ltd., 223/3, S-1, B, Malati Towers, E Ward, Tarabai Park, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm2170P आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.146 & 147/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle-1, Kolhapur …. Vs. Mahalaxmi Infraprojects Ltd., 223/3, S-1, B, Malati Towers, E Ward, Tarabai Park, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm2170P

bogus purchases and the Revenue is not in appeal; hence the claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act is restricted to additional income of Rs.35,98,460/- only, which merits to be allowed in the hands of assessee. In respect of grounds of appeal No.2 and 3 raised by the Revenue, the learned Authorized Representative

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. MAHALAXMI INFRAPROJECTS LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.142 To 145/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle-1, Kolhapur …. Vs. Mahalaxmi Infraprojects Ltd., 223/3, S-1, B, Malati Towers, E Ward, Tarabai Park, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm2170P आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.146 & 147/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle-1, Kolhapur …. Vs. Mahalaxmi Infraprojects Ltd., 223/3, S-1, B, Malati Towers, E Ward, Tarabai Park, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm2170P

bogus purchases and the Revenue is not in appeal; hence the claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act is restricted to additional income of Rs.35,98,460/- only, which merits to be allowed in the hands of assessee. In respect of grounds of appeal No.2 and 3 raised by the Revenue, the learned Authorized Representative

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

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

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

1] The learned Pr. CIT erred in holding that the asst. order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and thereby erred in setting aside the said asst. order for verification of the following issues - a. Genuineness of total URD purchase and determine the quantum of such purchase which

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

1] The learned Pr. CIT erred in holding that the asst. order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and thereby erred in setting aside the said asst. order for verification of the following issues - a. Genuineness of total URD purchase and determine the quantum of such purchase which

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

1] The learned Pr. CIT erred in holding that the asst. order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and thereby erred in setting aside the said asst. order for verification of the following issues - a. Genuineness of total URD purchase and determine the quantum of such purchase which

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

1] The learned Pr. CIT erred in holding that the asst. order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and thereby erred in setting aside the said asst. order for verification of the following issues - a. Genuineness of total URD purchase and determine the quantum of such purchase which

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

1] The learned Pr. CIT erred in holding that the asst. order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and thereby erred in setting aside the said asst. order for verification of the following issues - a. Genuineness of total URD purchase and determine the quantum of such purchase which

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

1] The learned Pr. CIT erred in holding that the asst. order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and thereby erred in setting aside the said asst. order for verification of the following issues - a. Genuineness of total URD purchase and determine the quantum of such purchase which

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

1] The learned Pr. CIT erred in holding that the asst. order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and thereby erred in setting aside the said asst. order for verification of the following issues - a. Genuineness of total URD purchase and determine the quantum of such purchase which

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

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

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in concluding that the transactions between Manvir Metals Pvt. Ltd. and assessee are genuine on the basis of verification of transactions between Manvir Metals Pvt. Ltd. and Mahalaxmi Infraprojects Ltd. without giving opportunity to the AO under Rule

SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

Bogus purchases’. 8. in confirming disallowance of rent paid of Rs.31,44,000/- for bungalow located at 70, Koregaon Park, Pune taken on lease (belonging to M/s. Poonawalla Finvest & Agro Pvt. Ltd., ZSP Group Company) for office of Director of appellant company and depreciation of Rs.12,97,701/- on the assets placed there at 9. a. not considering the ‘cost

SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

Bogus purchases’. 8. in confirming disallowance of rent paid of Rs.31,44,000/- for bungalow located at 70, Koregaon Park, Pune taken on lease (belonging to M/s. Poonawalla Finvest & Agro Pvt. Ltd., ZSP Group Company) for office of Director of appellant company and depreciation of Rs.12,97,701/- on the assets placed there at 9. a. not considering the ‘cost

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

Bogus purchases’. 8. in confirming disallowance of rent paid of Rs.31,44,000/- for bungalow located at 70, Koregaon Park, Pune taken on lease (belonging to M/s. Poonawalla Finvest & Agro Pvt. Ltd., ZSP Group Company) for office of Director of appellant company and depreciation of Rs.12,97,701/- on the assets placed there at 9. a. not considering the ‘cost