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

bogus. 6. 10.11.2016 941 to 958 = BP No.2 The Assessing Officer issued further notice asking the assessee to clarify on certain issues. 7. 03.12.2016 1435 to 1569 – PB No.2 The assessee submitted confirmations of a view customers and also details of the URD purchases made. 8. 14.12.2016 1571 to 1731 – PB No.3 The assessee submitted additional details to the Assessing

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

bogus. 6. 10.11.2016 941 to 958 = BP No.2 The Assessing Officer issued further notice asking the assessee to clarify on certain issues. 7. 03.12.2016 1435 to 1569 – PB No.2 The assessee submitted confirmations of a view customers and also details of the URD purchases made. 8. 14.12.2016 1571 to 1731 – PB No.3 The assessee submitted additional details to the Assessing

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

bogus. 6. 10.11.2016 941 to 958 = BP No.2 The Assessing Officer issued further notice asking the assessee to clarify on certain issues. 7. 03.12.2016 1435 to 1569 – PB No.2 The assessee submitted confirmations of a view customers and also details of the URD purchases made. 8. 14.12.2016 1571 to 1731 – PB No.3 The assessee submitted additional details to the Assessing

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

bogus. 6. 10.11.2016 941 to 958 = BP No.2 The Assessing Officer issued further notice asking the assessee to clarify on certain issues. 7. 03.12.2016 1435 to 1569 – PB No.2 The assessee submitted confirmations of a view customers and also details of the URD purchases made. 8. 14.12.2016 1571 to 1731 – PB No.3 The assessee submitted additional details to the Assessing

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

bogus. 6. 10.11.2016 941 to 958 = BP No.2 The Assessing Officer issued further notice asking the assessee to clarify on certain issues. 7. 03.12.2016 1435 to 1569 – PB No.2 The assessee submitted confirmations of a view customers and also details of the URD purchases made. 8. 14.12.2016 1571 to 1731 – PB No.3 The assessee submitted additional details to the Assessing

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

bogus. 6. 10.11.2016 941 to 958 = BP No.2 The Assessing Officer issued further notice asking the assessee to clarify on certain issues. 7. 03.12.2016 1435 to 1569 – PB No.2 The assessee submitted confirmations of a view customers and also details of the URD purchases made. 8. 14.12.2016 1571 to 1731 – PB No.3 The assessee submitted additional details to the Assessing

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

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

section 133A(iii) clarifies beyond doubt that the material collected and the statement recorded during the survey are not conclusive piece of evidence by themselves. 15. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunrise Tooling System (P.) Ltd. reported in (2014) 361 ITR 206 (Del), he submitted that

M/S. SHI vs. HAKTI SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,,OSMANABADVS.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, NANDED

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Shivshakti Shetkari Vs. Dcit, Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Circle-3, Limited, Nanded Washi Dist., Osmanabad. Pan : Aacts1082Q Appellant Respondent

bogus purchases of Rs.11,29,218/- which represented the taxpayer‟s taxable income having escaped assessment. We next note that the Assessing Officer went on to disallow the assessee‟s excess payments made to members to the tune of Rs.1,29,14,547/- which has been upheld in the CIT(A)‟s order. 4. It thus, emerges as an instance

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

2. These cases relates to hawala purchases wherein the Assessing Officer made 100% addition on such purchases and the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the same. For sake of convenience, we would take facts as appearing in assessment year 2009-10. A.Y.2009-10 3. The facts in this case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing

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

2. These cases relates to hawala purchases wherein the Assessing Officer made 100% addition on such purchases and the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the same. For sake of convenience, we would take facts as appearing in assessment year 2009-10. A.Y.2009-10 3. The facts in this case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing

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"

III. The case where the Assessing Officer had confronted the information received from the Sales Tax Department and had supplied copies of statements recorded and had also issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the assessee failing to file any documentary evidence of delivery of 18 Serum

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"

III. The case where the Assessing Officer had confronted the information received from the Sales Tax Department and had supplied copies of statements recorded and had also issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the assessee failing to file any documentary evidence of delivery of 18 Serum

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"

III. The case where the Assessing Officer had confronted the information received from the Sales Tax Department and had supplied copies of statements recorded and had also issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the assessee failing to file any documentary evidence of delivery of 18 Serum

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"

III. The case where the Assessing Officer had confronted the information received from the Sales Tax Department and had supplied copies of statements recorded and had also issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the assessee failing to file any documentary evidence of delivery of 18 Serum

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANVEL CIRCLE PANVEL vs. OUTABOX MEDIA SOLUTIONS LLP, GHATKOPAR MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

Section 142 (1). 2. In the present case, the facts did not warrant the order made by the High Court. At the same time, this Court notices that the High Court had granted liberty to the concerned authority to issue appropriate notice. 3. It is clarified, therefore, that the assessing officer is free to complete the assessment (in case

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

2% of the bogus sales amounting to Rs.180,05,90,205/- on the ground that the assessee had shown false entries of purchases made from non-existing entities. Therefore, the assessee’s claim of sales out of such purchases is also bogus and the assessee would have earned only the commission for providing such false entries in its books

SHRIKANT ANANTRAO ZORI,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) AURANGABAD , AURANGABAD

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

2 Months.\nFurther the appellant had received the said amounts being ex-gratia\n(severance pay) compensation on premature cessation of his services under a\nscheme which was purely voluntary in nature as the same was neither in\nterms of employment nor the service rules of the company provided for\nmaking exgratia (severance pay) payment, these payments are thus Capital

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