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"

bogus. I have already decided this issue in M/s. Chetan Enterprises Vs. ACIT (supra) and held that in cases where the Assessing Officer has failed to supply such statement recorded by the Sales Tax Department or any other evidence justifying the addition, no addition is to be made in the hands of assessee. The grounds of appeal raised

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"

bogus. I have already decided this issue in M/s. Chetan Enterprises Vs. ACIT (supra) and held that in cases where the Assessing Officer has failed to supply such statement recorded by the Sales Tax Department or any other evidence justifying the addition, no addition is to be made in the hands of assessee. The grounds of appeal raised

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"

bogus. I have already decided this issue in M/s. Chetan Enterprises Vs. ACIT (supra) and held that in cases where the Assessing Officer has failed to supply such statement recorded by the Sales Tax Department or any other evidence justifying the addition, no addition is to be made in the hands of assessee. The grounds of appeal raised

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4),, AURANGABAD vs. M/S. SARASWATI EXTRUSIONS PVT.LTD,, AURANGABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1546/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Saraswati Extrusions Ward-2(4), Aurangabad. Vs Pvt. Ltd., . H-20, Midc, Waluj, Aurangabad – 431136. Pan: Aajcs 6024 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1716/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S.Saraswati Extrusions Pvt. The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs Ward-2(4), Aurangabad. H-20, Midc, Waluj, . Aurangabad – 431136. Pan: Aajcs 6024 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S & Assessee’S Cross Appeals Ita No.1546 & 1716/Pun/2017 For A.Y. 2011-12 Arising Against The Ld.Cit(A)- 2, Aurangabad’S Order Dated 12.04.2017 Passed In Appeal No.Abd/Cit(A)-2/E-File/57/2016-17, In Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”]. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. ITA No.1546/PUN/2017 [R] & ITA No.1716/PUN/2017 [A] M/s.Saraswati Extrusions Pvt. Ltd., for A.Y. 2011-12 2. It emerges at the outset that both these Revenue’s and assessee’s cross appeals raise a common issue of genuineness of the latter

M/S. SARSWATI EXTRUSION PVT.LTD,,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4),, AURANGABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1546/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Saraswati Extrusions Ward-2(4), Aurangabad. Vs Pvt. Ltd., . H-20, Midc, Waluj, Aurangabad – 431136. Pan: Aajcs 6024 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1716/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S.Saraswati Extrusions Pvt. The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs Ward-2(4), Aurangabad. H-20, Midc, Waluj, . Aurangabad – 431136. Pan: Aajcs 6024 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S & Assessee’S Cross Appeals Ita No.1546 & 1716/Pun/2017 For A.Y. 2011-12 Arising Against The Ld.Cit(A)- 2, Aurangabad’S Order Dated 12.04.2017 Passed In Appeal No.Abd/Cit(A)-2/E-File/57/2016-17, In Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”]. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. ITA No.1546/PUN/2017 [R] & ITA No.1716/PUN/2017 [A] M/s.Saraswati Extrusions Pvt. Ltd., for A.Y. 2011-12 2. It emerges at the outset that both these Revenue’s and assessee’s cross appeals raise a common issue of genuineness of the latter

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

section 153C renders the assessment invalid. For the above proposition, he relied on the following decisions: 1. Sejal Jewellary Vs. Union of India [2025] 171 taxmann.com 846 (Bombay High Court) 2 Tirupati Construction Company v. ITO [2024] 165 taxmann.com 176 (Rajasthan High Court) 3 Shri Karshni Metals Pvt. Ltd Vs. ITO [ITA No. 5079/DEL/2019] (Delhi Tribunal) Date of pronouncement: 27th

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

section 153C renders the assessment invalid. For the above proposition, he relied on the following decisions: 1. Sejal Jewellary Vs. Union of India [2025] 171 taxmann.com 846 (Bombay High Court) 2 Tirupati Construction Company v. ITO [2024] 165 taxmann.com 176 (Rajasthan High Court) 3 Shri Karshni Metals Pvt. Ltd Vs. ITO [ITA No. 5079/DEL/2019] (Delhi Tribunal) Date of pronouncement: 27th

P.P. ENTERPRISES,,PANVEL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, PANVEL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

bogus purchases. Aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer, assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). 5. During the First Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) upon perusing Form No.35, observed that the assessee filed appeal before him with a delay of 3 months 17 days. Eventually, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay itself

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

purchase and sale transactions undertaken by the assessee treating the same as bogus in nature and thereby making addition of Rs.80,58,939/-. 31. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Renu Aggarwal (2023) 456 ITR 249 (SC), he submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

purchase and sale transactions undertaken by the assessee treating the same as bogus in nature and thereby making addition of Rs.80,58,939/-. 31. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Renu Aggarwal (2023) 456 ITR 249 (SC), he submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

purchase and sale transactions undertaken by the assessee treating the same as bogus in nature and thereby making addition of Rs.80,58,939/-. 31. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Renu Aggarwal (2023) 456 ITR 249 (SC), he submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

purchased by assessee online, payments were made through banking channel and shares were dematerialized and, further, sales were routed from demat account and, sale consideration was received through banking channels, impugned addition made by Assessing Officer under section 68 treating such LTCG as bogus was unjustified. 20. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

purchased by assessee online, payments were made through banking channel and shares were dematerialized and, further, sales were routed from demat account and, sale consideration was received through banking channels, impugned addition made by Assessing Officer under section 68 treating such LTCG as bogus was unjustified. 20. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

purchased by assessee online, payments were made through banking channel and shares were dematerialized and, further, sales were routed from demat account and, sale consideration was received through banking channels, impugned addition made by Assessing Officer under section 68 treating such LTCG as bogus was unjustified. 20. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

purchased by assessee online, payments were made through banking channel and shares were dematerialized and, further, sales were routed from demat account and, sale consideration was received through banking channels, impugned addition made by Assessing Officer under section 68 treating such LTCG as bogus was unjustified. 20. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

purchased by assessee online, payments were made through banking channel and shares were dematerialized and, further, sales were routed from demat account and, sale consideration was received through banking channels, impugned addition made by Assessing Officer under section 68 treating such LTCG as bogus was unjustified. 20. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

purchased by assessee online, payments were made through banking channel and shares were dematerialized and, further, sales were routed from demat account and, sale consideration was received through banking channels, impugned addition made by Assessing Officer under section 68 treating such LTCG as bogus was unjustified. 20. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

purchased by assessee online, payments were made through banking channel and shares were dematerialized and, further, sales were routed from demat account and, sale consideration was received through banking channels, impugned addition made by Assessing Officer under section 68 treating such LTCG as bogus was unjustified. 20. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court

COMMON WEALTH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.977/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11

purchase at ₹ 4,86,42,072/-, labour charges ₹ 7,24,17,084/-, excavation and breaker charges ₹ 1,03,42,409/-. He further stated that (a) no work was observed executed during this period but an amount of ₹ 13.17 crores was spent for material and direct expenses during this period; (b) in the year 2009-10, ₹ 1.81 crores were spent