DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. METAROLLS ISPAT PVT. LTD., JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

e-way bills, etc. the fact remains that such parties neither responded to notices issued u/s 133(6) nor appeared before the Assessing Officer in response to the Summons issued u/s 131 of the Act. At the same time, it is also an admitted fact that the sales of the assessee have not been disputed and the books of account

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. RATHI STEEL AND METAL PVT. LTD, JALNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Dcit, Aurangabad Rathi Steel & Metal Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.F12, Addl Midc Area, Phase-Ii, Vs. Jalna – 431203 Pan : Aabcr5546A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anand Partani Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - Cit Date Of Hearing : 01-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

bogus purchases from various entities in respect of the assessee company. In the appraisal report names of 19 parties were mentioned. Notices u/s 133(6) of the Act were issued to these parties and the purchases were confirmed by the parties except OM Traders, Sunny Traders and Krypton Scrap Works Pvt. Ltd. It was further mentioned that information was also

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHAPUR vs. NATHMAL RUPCHAND JAIN, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 10.04.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2020-21. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and the proprietor of Pooja Jewellers engaged in trading of jewellery and ornaments

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE, PUNE vs. SHREE CHANAKYA EDUCATION SOCIETY, AUNDH, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

E account of Assessee trust. Considering the above facts, it is clear that assessee trust has claimed bogus expenditure resulting in incorrect claim of application of income leading to underassessment of total income of Assessee trust to extent of Rs.1,84,99,795/-. Therefore, I have reason to believe that income to extent of Rs.1,84,99,795/- has escaped

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE, PUNE vs. SHREE CHANAKYA EDUCATION SOCIETY, AUNDH ,PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

E account of Assessee trust. Considering the above facts, it is clear that assessee trust has claimed bogus expenditure resulting in incorrect claim of application of income leading to underassessment of total income of Assessee trust to extent of Rs.1,84,99,795/-. Therefore, I have reason to believe that income to extent of Rs.1,84,99,795/- has escaped

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

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

section (3) of section 143 for any\nprevious year; or\nc) Such case has been selected in accordance with the risk\nmanagement strategy, formulated by the Board from time to\ntime, for any previous year;\nThe Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall—\ni.\ncall for such documents or information from the trust\nor institution, or make such inquiry as he thinks

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

E R PER R.K. PANDA, VP : ITA No.427/PUN/2024 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.01.2024 of the CIT(A), Pune-11 relating to assessment year 2015-16. 2 IT(SS)A Nos.23 to 25/PUN/2024 IT(SS)A Nos.23.PUN/2024 to 25/PUN/2024 filed by the Revenue are directed against the separate orders dated

DATTATRAY HANMANTRAO DESAI,KARAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues: “S. No. Issues i. Share Capital / Other Capital‖ 4. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 19.04.2021 accepting the returned income. 5. Subsequently the Ld. PCIT examined the record and noted certain discrepancies with regard

DCIT-CIRCLE 7 PUNE, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK PUNE vs. TRIO CHEMSUCROTECH ENG. PROJECTS PVT. LTD, PUNE

e) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in the law, the CIT (A) has erred in holding the objections of the AO, in admitting the revised stand of the assessee, as mere surmises and conjectures (in para 5.6.4 of his order) even when the same were substantiated and logical?\n(f) Whether on the facts

SAILAB MARKETING SERVICES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

e) Selling and administration expenses in case of our company is 8.83 Crore whereas in case of Sundaram Multi Pap. Ltd. it is 5.87 Crore. 8 ITA.Nos.72, 73 & 66/PUN./2021 And ITA.Nos.849, 850 & 851/PUN./2023 (f) Interest and finance charges in case of our company are at Rs. 6.28 Crores whereas in case of Sundaram Multi

DCIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE vs. SHRI PURUSHOTTAM R MOGHE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

e) Selling and administration expenses in case of our company is 8.83 Crore whereas in case of Sundaram Multi Pap. Ltd. it is 5.87 Crore. 8 ITA.Nos.72, 73 & 66/PUN./2021 And ITA.Nos.849, 850 & 851/PUN./2023 (f) Interest and finance charges in case of our company are at Rs. 6.28 Crores whereas in case of Sundaram Multi

DCIT CIRCLE- 5, PUNE vs. SAILAB MARKETING SERVICES PVT. LTD., PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

e) Selling and administration expenses in case of our company is 8.83 Crore whereas in case of Sundaram Multi Pap. Ltd. it is 5.87 Crore. 8 ITA.Nos.72, 73 & 66/PUN./2021 And ITA.Nos.849, 850 & 851/PUN./2023 (f) Interest and finance charges in case of our company are at Rs. 6.28 Crores whereas in case of Sundaram Multi

DCIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE vs. SHRI PURUSHOTTAM R MOGHE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

e) Selling and administration expenses in case of our company is 8.83 Crore whereas in case of Sundaram Multi Pap. Ltd. it is 5.87 Crore. 8 ITA.Nos.72, 73 & 66/PUN./2021 And ITA.Nos.849, 850 & 851/PUN./2023 (f) Interest and finance charges in case of our company are at Rs. 6.28 Crores whereas in case of Sundaram Multi

PURUSHOTTAM R MOGHE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

e) Selling and administration expenses in case of our company is 8.83 Crore whereas in case of Sundaram Multi Pap. Ltd. it is 5.87 Crore. 8 ITA.Nos.72, 73 & 66/PUN./2021 And ITA.Nos.849, 850 & 851/PUN./2023 (f) Interest and finance charges in case of our company are at Rs. 6.28 Crores whereas in case of Sundaram Multi

PURUSHOTTAM R MOGHE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

e) Selling and administration expenses in case of our company is 8.83 Crore whereas in case of Sundaram Multi Pap. Ltd. it is 5.87 Crore. 8 ITA.Nos.72, 73 & 66/PUN./2021 And ITA.Nos.849, 850 & 851/PUN./2023 (f) Interest and finance charges in case of our company are at Rs. 6.28 Crores whereas in case of Sundaram Multi

JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

e-filed his return of income for A.Y.2016-17 on 28.01.2017 declaring total income Rs.11,64,870/-. The return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 19161. Assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 09/12/2018, computing total income at Rs.11,64,870/- Reasons for the reopening In this case information has been received through insight portal from

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD HINGOLI, WARD HINGOLI (CAMP AT PARBHANI) vs. VISHWAS AGRO PRODUCT PVT LTD, PARBHANI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

22,960/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Accordingly, statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were issued and served on the assessee in response to which the AR of the assessee filed the requisite details from time to time. 2 3. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer