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

2% of the URD purchases. In the revision order, the Pr.CIT refers to the allegation of bogus purchases (of course, not spoken in the language of VAT defaulter short listed by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Department and mentioned about the estimation of profit @ 12.5% to 25%. At the end of the proceedings, the Pr.CIT discussed these facts in para

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

2% of the URD purchases. In the revision order, the Pr.CIT refers to the allegation of bogus purchases (of course, not spoken in the language of VAT defaulter short listed by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Department and mentioned about the estimation of profit @ 12.5% to 25%. At the end of the proceedings, the Pr.CIT discussed these facts in para

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

2% of the URD purchases. In the revision order, the Pr.CIT refers to the allegation of bogus purchases (of course, not spoken in the language of VAT defaulter short listed by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Department and mentioned about the estimation of profit @ 12.5% to 25%. At the end of the proceedings, the Pr.CIT discussed these facts in para

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

2% of the URD purchases. In the revision order, the Pr.CIT refers to the allegation of bogus purchases (of course, not spoken in the language of VAT defaulter short listed by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Department and mentioned about the estimation of profit @ 12.5% to 25%. At the end of the proceedings, the Pr.CIT discussed these facts in para

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

2% of the URD purchases. In the revision order, the Pr.CIT refers to the allegation of bogus purchases (of course, not spoken in the language of VAT defaulter short listed by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Department and mentioned about the estimation of profit @ 12.5% to 25%. At the end of the proceedings, the Pr.CIT discussed these facts in para

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

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

M/S. SHANDAR INTERIORS PVT. LD.,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : 3,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

2) the decision of AO in making addition of only 20% on account of the bogus purchases in the reassessment constitutes one of the plausible view. Further, assessee raised Ground No.4 mentioning that the order of AO is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue not only on account of the said bogus purchases but also the sundry

M/S. SHANDAR INTERIORS PVT. LD.,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : 3,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

2) the decision of AO in making addition of only 20% on account of the bogus purchases in the reassessment constitutes one of the plausible view. Further, assessee raised Ground No.4 mentioning that the order of AO is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue not only on account of the said bogus purchases but also the sundry

RAHUL CABLES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1168 To 1170/Pun/2017 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 वष"

bogus purchases constitutes a debatable one. As such, the AO has taken one prevailing view in this matter. Therefore, thrusting another view by the Pr.CIT in his revision order in our view is outside the scope of provisions of section 263 of the Act. Therefore, it is not a clear cut case of erroneous assumption of law as made

RAHUL CABLES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1168 To 1170/Pun/2017 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 वष"

bogus purchases constitutes a debatable one. As such, the AO has taken one prevailing view in this matter. Therefore, thrusting another view by the Pr.CIT in his revision order in our view is outside the scope of provisions of section 263 of the Act. Therefore, it is not a clear cut case of erroneous assumption of law as made

RAHUL CABLES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1168 To 1170/Pun/2017 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 वष"

bogus purchases constitutes a debatable one. As such, the AO has taken one prevailing view in this matter. Therefore, thrusting another view by the Pr.CIT in his revision order in our view is outside the scope of provisions of section 263 of the Act. Therefore, it is not a clear cut case of erroneous assumption of law as made

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. M/S. DELUXE TUBE TRADERS & SCRAP CENTRE,, NASHIK

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

2) against the 25% addition made on account of alleged bogus purchases. Revenue has not filed appeal for the A.Y. 2009-10 against the relief granted by the CIT(A). 4. Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm and is engaged in the business of Trading in Tubes and Scrapes. Assessee filed

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. M/S. DELUXE TUBE TRADERS & SCRAP CENTRE,, NASHIK

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

2) against the 25% addition made on account of alleged bogus purchases. Revenue has not filed appeal for the A.Y. 2009-10 against the relief granted by the CIT(A). 4. Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm and is engaged in the business of Trading in Tubes and Scrapes. Assessee filed

M/S. DELUXE TUBE TRADERS & SCRAP CENTRE,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

2) against the 25% addition made on account of alleged bogus purchases. Revenue has not filed appeal for the A.Y. 2009-10 against the relief granted by the CIT(A). 4. Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm and is engaged in the business of Trading in Tubes and Scrapes. Assessee filed

PRAMOD SHANKARRAO SALUNKHE,,KOLHAPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -2,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 974/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Pramod Shankarrao Salunkhe Flat No.7, Takshak Apartment, E Ward, Nagala Park, Kolhapur-416 003 Pan : Alnps2900F .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Kolhapur. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri J.P Chandrakar

Section 68 and 69C of the I.T Act, 1961”. The said Gujarat High Court‟s decision has been affirmed by the Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP filed by the assessee and accordingly, it was held by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax that the addition on percentage basis on bogus/hawala purchases is not correct

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

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short „the Act‟. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee‟s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2. We notice at the outset that the instant appeal suffers from 835 days delay in filing, which has been stated to be attributable to various communication gaps as well

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