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

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

2% of the bogus sales\namounting to Rs.180,05,90,205/- on the ground that the assessee had shown false\nentries of purchases made from non-existing entities. Therefore, the assessee's\nclaim of sales out of such purchases is also bogus and the assessee would have\nearned 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

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

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

section 147/148 of the Act. We find that the said issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and referring to paras 4 and 5 of the appellate order, we uphold the same and dismiss the ground of appeal No.1 raised

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

section 147/148 of the Act. We find that the said issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and referring to paras 4 and 5 of the appellate order, we uphold the same and dismiss the ground of appeal No.1 raised

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

section 147/148 of the Act. We find that the said issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and referring to paras 4 and 5 of the appellate order, we uphold the same and dismiss the ground of appeal No.1 raised

INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. DEEPAK SHANKAR PANASKAR,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 203 & 204/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11

bogus purchases over and above the GP declared by the assessee. 7. We have considered the decision in the case of Mukeshkumar Pukhraj Mehta Vs. The Income Tax Officer (supra.) on which the ld. DR has placed reliance. In the said case, the assessee had admitted to the addition of purchases made from the hawala dealers. No supporting documents substantiating

INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. DEEPAK SHANKAR PANASKAR,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 203 & 204/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11

bogus purchases over and above the GP declared by the assessee. 7. We have considered the decision in the case of Mukeshkumar Pukhraj Mehta Vs. The Income Tax Officer (supra.) on which the ld. DR has placed reliance. In the said case, the assessee had admitted to the addition of purchases made from the hawala dealers. No supporting documents substantiating

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