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. ANIKET TRADING COMPANY,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.467/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

24,323/- and Rs.11,00,086/- respectively. In the assessment, AO made the entire addition of these purchases as bogus ones. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by AO. In the instant case, I find the assessee filed the tax invoices, transportation bills, bank statements, payments through banking channels, delivery challans, weigh-bridge receipts etc., evidencing the fact of transportation

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

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

bogus purchases of Rs.13,80,63,994/- will meet the ends of justice. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to adopt the profit rate of 5% on the total purchases of Rs.13,80,63,994/- and restrict the addition to Rs.69,03,200/-. The order

M/S. MARCURUS WATER TREATMENT INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1263/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

24-09-2009 declaring total income of Rs.29,16,952/-. Assessee’s case was reopened based on the information that the assessee indulged in bogus purchases from three suppliers 2 M/s. Marcurus Water Treatment India Pvt. Ltd., namely (1) Krishna Steel Industries – Rs.9,74,611/-; (2) Prima Steel Impact - Rs.5,59,813/-; and (3) Asian Metal Industries – Rs.4

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

bogus purchases of Rs.13,80,63,994/- will meet the ends of justice. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to adopt the profit rate of 5% on the total purchases of Rs.13,80,63,994/- and restrict the addition to Rs.69,03,200/-. The order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

section 132(4), which delineates that the statement made by the assessee may or may not be used as evidence in the assessment proceedings. The nitty gritty of the matter is that though a statement made u/s 132(4) carries immense weight and works as an evidence, but the same is not conclusive in so far as the legal assertions

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

section 132(4), which delineates that the statement made by the assessee may or may not be used as evidence in the assessment proceedings. The nitty gritty of the matter is that though a statement made u/s 132(4) carries immense weight and works as an evidence, but the same is not conclusive in so far as the legal assertions

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

section 132(4), which delineates that the statement made by the assessee may or may not be used as evidence in the assessment proceedings. The nitty gritty of the matter is that though a statement made u/s 132(4) carries immense weight and works as an evidence, but the same is not conclusive in so far as the legal assertions

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

section 132(4), which delineates that the statement made by the assessee may or may not be used as evidence in the assessment proceedings. The nitty gritty of the matter is that though a statement made u/s 132(4) carries immense weight and works as an evidence, but the same is not conclusive in so far as the legal assertions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

section 132(4), which delineates that the statement made by the assessee may or may not be used as evidence in the assessment proceedings. The nitty gritty of the matter is that though a statement made u/s 132(4) carries immense weight and works as an evidence, but the same is not conclusive in so far as the legal assertions

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

section 132(4), which delineates that the statement made by the assessee may or may not be used as evidence in the assessment proceedings. The nitty gritty of the matter is that though a statement made u/s 132(4) carries immense weight and works as an evidence, but the same is not conclusive in so far as the legal assertions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

section 132(4), which delineates that the statement made by the assessee may or may not be used as evidence in the assessment proceedings. The nitty gritty of the matter is that though a statement made u/s 132(4) carries immense weight and works as an evidence, but the same is not conclusive in so far as the legal assertions

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

section 132(4), which delineates that the statement made by the assessee may or may not be used as evidence in the assessment proceedings. The nitty gritty of the matter is that though a statement made u/s 132(4) carries immense weight and works as an evidence, but the same is not conclusive in so far as the legal assertions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

section 132(4), which delineates that the statement made by the assessee may or may not be used as evidence in the assessment proceedings. The nitty gritty of the matter is that though a statement made u/s 132(4) carries immense weight and works as an evidence, but the same is not conclusive in so far as the legal assertions

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

section 132(4), which delineates that the statement made by the assessee may or may not be used as evidence in the assessment proceedings. The nitty gritty of the matter is that though a statement made u/s 132(4) carries immense weight and works as an evidence, but the same is not conclusive in so far as the legal assertions

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

purchases made by the assessee to the tune of Rs.2,24,40,000/- are bogus, the Assessing Officer rejected the books of account by applying the provisions of section

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

24 of the paper book where opening balance was at Rs.90,11,840/- and two purchases were made i.e. Rs.70,148/- and Rs.4,91,088/-. The Ld. AR further pointed that same addition in 7 A.Y. 2006-07 respect of purchases from Manvir Metal Pvt. Ltd. were made in the hands of Mahalaxmi Infraprojects Ltd. in assessment year

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

24,481/- for A.Y. 2009-10) on account of bogus purchases calculating at the rate of 2% of URD purchases made in cash on ad-hoc basis. This is common addition made by the Assessing Officer in all theses appeals. 6. Further, the Pr.CIT assumed jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act merely on examination of the records by issuing