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

purchases and expenses were pending to be received even till 31.03.2010, the provisioning made was not accepted and added back to the income, After making the above two additions, the income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.30,94,50,800/-.\n6. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings, assessee along with making

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

bogus; when no authority to such effect existed with the learned TPO. The learned DRP erred in not deleting the entire addition proposed by the learned TPO on the above analogy as such and further erred in not proceeding with the matter instead of leaving the matter at that point, considering the scope of powers u/s 144C

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

bogus; when no authority to such effect existed with the learned TPO. The learned DRP erred in not deleting the entire addition proposed by the learned TPO on the above analogy as such and further erred in not proceeding with the matter instead of leaving the matter at that point, considering the scope of powers u/s 144C

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

bogus; when no authority to such effect existed with the learned TPO. The learned DRP erred in not deleting the entire addition proposed by the learned TPO on the above analogy as such and further erred in not proceeding with the matter instead of leaving the matter at that point, considering the scope of powers u/s 144C

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

bogus; when no authority to such effect existed with the learned TPO. The learned DRP erred in not deleting the entire addition proposed by the learned TPO on the above analogy as such and further erred in not proceeding with the matter instead of leaving the matter at that point, considering the scope of powers u/s 144C

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

bogus; when no authority to such effect existed with the learned TPO. The learned DRP erred in not deleting the entire addition proposed by the learned TPO on the above analogy as such and further erred in not proceeding with the matter instead of leaving the matter at that point, considering the scope of powers u/s 144C

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

bogus; when no authority to such effect existed with the learned TPO. The learned DRP erred in not deleting the entire addition proposed by the learned TPO on the above analogy as such and further erred in not proceeding with the matter instead of leaving the matter at that point, considering the scope of powers u/s 144C

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3 , PUNE vs. SHRI. PRITAM SUBHASH MAHALE, PUNE

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.183/Pun/2020 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-2010 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-3, Pune. . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Pritam S Mahale F.No-01, Nihar Apartment, Mayur Colony, Kothrud, Pune-29. . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 03/10/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Revenue Is Assailed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 20/11/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which Emanated Out Of The Assessment Order Dt. 09/03/2015 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act, By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Circle-3, Pune [For Short “Ao”] For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Grounds As Raised In The Memorandum Are;

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [for short “the Act”] which emanated out of the assessment order dt. 09/03/2015 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle-3, Pune [for short “AO”] for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The grounds as raised in the memorandum are; ITAT-Pune Page

AEGIS AMPOULES & VIALS LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

bogus sales disregarding the facts that sales could not be effected unless purchases were made by the appellant and also that profit disclosed on the said sales was already offered for taxation and hence further addition on G.P. would tantamount to double addition. 3. On the facts and In the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C.I.T

M/S. GORDHANSINGH S RAJPUROHIT,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, PANVEL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

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

bogus purchases. This is a case, where at the most, the purchase amount would have been inflated. Moreover the impugned addition of Rs.3,08,99,339/- would result in net profit of 68% which is not possible in any trading business. Therefore, following the principle laid down in the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case

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

section 250(6) of the Act, CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issue on merits. Otherwise, there is an addition of Rs.17,69,894/- made by the AO in this case on account of bogus purchases

GANESH AGRO STEEL INDUSTRIES,NASHIK vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

purchases\nwhereas the A.O. had not confronted any seized documents or statements\nwhich were relied upon by him to doubt the genuineness of the said\npurchases nor did the A.O. grant an opportunity of cross examination of\nthe said party in spite of specific written request, and hence, the above\naddition made by the A.O. merely by relying on information

R. K. WINES,PEN vs. ITO, WARD 4, PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

250 of the Act, dated19.12.2024 for the A.Y.2022-23. The\nAssessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :\n“1. The Hon CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of the Id AO in\nrejecting the books of accounts by resorting to the provisions of section\n145(3) of the LT Act, 1961, not appreciating that the books of accounts\nand

M/S. CTR MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1056/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd., Nagar Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411014 …. Pan: Aaacc7256R Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- On facts and in law, 1] The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of purchases of Rs.1,37,99,275/- made by the appellant company from M/s. Hariom Traders and Supreme Enterprises on the ground that

ACIT CIRCLE-12, PUNE, PUNE vs. DHIRAJ BHAUSAHEB NIKAM, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle – 12, Pune Dhiraj Bhausaheb Nikam Vs. 515/516, Purva Plaza, Sadashiv Peth, Pune – 411030 Pan: Aahpn5137C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, Jcit (Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 10-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-02-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

bogus long term capital gain. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee and relying on various decisions, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act and made addition of the same by observing as under: 6 7 8 9 6. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC held that the assessee

M/S. SUN POLYMERS,,JALNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JALNA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Sun Polymers Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Jalna D-55/2, Additional Midc Area, Jalna – 431203 Pan: Aapfs4537H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By Shri S.P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing 05-08-2020 Date Of Pronouncement 05-08-2020 आदेश / Order

bogus investment and made addition for that. In addition, the AO also disallowed depreciation on such fixed assets to the tune of Rs.4,45,420/-, being 7.50% of Rs.59,38,955/-. During the course of the first appellate proceedings, the assessee tried to furnish some evidence proving 4 M/s. Sun Polymers genuineness of the transaction. The ld. CIT(A) sent

SHREEM ELECTRIC LIMITED,KOLHAPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.898/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2017-18 Shreem Electric Limited, V The Assistant Plot No.43 To 46, S Commissioner Of Income L.K.Akiwate Industrial Tax, Estate, Jaysingpur, Shirol, Central Circle, Kolhapur. Kolhapur – 416144. Pan: Aaccs4893C Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak -Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 31/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 31.01.2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Penalty Under Section 270A Of Rs.3,01,124/-. Shreem Electric Limited, Kolhapur[A] 2. The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That, Since The Addition Is Made On Adhoc Basis, No Penalty Can Be Levied. 3. The Penalty Levied May Please Be Delete. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend Or Delete Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal.” 2. There Is A Delay Of Two Months Of Filing Appeal Before This Tribunal. Considering The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit, We Are Convinced With The Reasons For Delay & In The Larger Interest Of Justice, We Condone The Delay.

250 of the Income tax Act, dated 31.01.2024 for the A.Y.2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty under section 270A of Rs.3,01,124/-. Shreem Electric Limited, Kolhapur[A] 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that, since the addition is made on adhoc basis, no penalty

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. SACHIN MOTILAL MUTHA, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2211/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Income Tax Vs Sachin Motilal Mutha, Officer, H-4, Kalyan Co. Op. Hsg. Sco., Ward-11(1), Pune. Shankarsheth Road, Mahatma Phule Peth, Pune – 411004. Pan: Ahdpm2649F Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Sachin Motilal Mutha (Assessee) Revenue By Shri Harish Bist – Addl.Cit(Through Virtual Hearing) Date Of Hearing 01/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19 Dated 21.07.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144Bof The Act, Dated 25.03.2023. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2018-19 dated 21.07.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144Bof the Act, dated 25.03.2023. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.2211/PUN/2025 [D] “(i) Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is right in holding that the assessee