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

3 of the Indian Evidence Act, it clearly transpires that the statement made by an assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act can be construed as an oral evidence or at the most a substitution of documentary evidence. To put it simply, if an assessee states in his statement u/s 132(4) that he purchased certain asset from undisclosed income

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

3 of the Indian Evidence Act, it clearly transpires that the statement made by an assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act can be construed as an oral evidence or at the most a substitution of documentary evidence. To put it simply, if an assessee states in his statement u/s 132(4) that he purchased certain asset from undisclosed income

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

3 of the Indian Evidence Act, it clearly transpires that the statement made by an assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act can be construed as an oral evidence or at the most a substitution of documentary evidence. To put it simply, if an assessee states in his statement u/s 132(4) that he purchased certain asset from undisclosed income

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

3 of the Indian Evidence Act, it clearly transpires that the statement made by an assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act can be construed as an oral evidence or at the most a substitution of documentary evidence. To put it simply, if an assessee states in his statement u/s 132(4) that he purchased certain asset from undisclosed income

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

3 of the Indian Evidence Act, it clearly transpires that the statement made by an assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act can be construed as an oral evidence or at the most a substitution of documentary evidence. To put it simply, if an assessee states in his statement u/s 132(4) that he purchased certain asset from undisclosed income

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

3 of the Indian Evidence Act, it clearly transpires that the statement made by an assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act can be construed as an oral evidence or at the most a substitution of documentary evidence. To put it simply, if an assessee states in his statement u/s 132(4) that he purchased certain asset from undisclosed income

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

3 of the Indian Evidence Act, it clearly transpires that the statement made by an assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act can be construed as an oral evidence or at the most a substitution of documentary evidence. To put it simply, if an assessee states in his statement u/s 132(4) that he purchased certain asset from undisclosed income

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

3 of the Indian Evidence Act, it clearly transpires that the statement made by an assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act can be construed as an oral evidence or at the most a substitution of documentary evidence. To put it simply, if an assessee states in his statement u/s 132(4) that he purchased certain asset from undisclosed income

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. JITENDRA RAVINDRA MALPURE,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

253/- for A.Y.2010-11 on account of alleged bogus purchases from Hawala dealers/parties. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A)-1, Nashik was justified in deleting the purchases treated as bogus when the appellant had not been able to produce the certain parties from whom purchases were made when letters sent

AGARWAL GROUP CORPORATE HOLDING P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1666/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri Brijendra Nath Agarwal, Mzsk & Associates, Chartered Accountants Level 3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Near Rto, Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aawpa9005D Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle 2(1), Pune

bogus unsecured loans; ₹ 1,14,742/- as non- genuine interest expenses and had also failed to explain the source of cash payment of ₹ 15 lakhs, where the assessee’s share was ₹ 7.50 lakhs on page No.10 of Bundle No.1, seized from the office of CIIL and page 30 of Bundle No.1 seized from the office of M/s. Veena Industries

BRIJENDRA NATH AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1666/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri Brijendra Nath Agarwal, Mzsk & Associates, Chartered Accountants Level 3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Near Rto, Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aawpa9005D Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle 2(1), Pune

bogus unsecured loans; ₹ 1,14,742/- as non- genuine interest expenses and had also failed to explain the source of cash payment of ₹ 15 lakhs, where the assessee’s share was ₹ 7.50 lakhs on page No.10 of Bundle No.1, seized from the office of CIIL and page 30 of Bundle No.1 seized from the office of M/s. Veena Industries

SANGEETA BASAVRAJ MANGRULE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

3 Sangeeta B. Mangrule A,Y. 2015-16 authorities was also highly questionable. Same was also true in the case of Paper/Jamakharchi/bogus clients. Though they were registered as a client with share brokers and the brokers maintained KYC for such bogus clients also yet these clients did not exist at their given registered address. In many cases, it was found

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (4),, NASHIK vs. JITENDRA RAVINDRA MALPURE,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was passed on 25.03.2015 assessing total income at Rs.26,03,190/-, wherein he made an addition of Rs.19,26,253/-. The Assessing Officer has also initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. DHANRAJ CHHAGANLAL SHAH, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

3 years invoking the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer made the addition of the same by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act. However, on appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) held that the same are taxable under the provisions of section

DHANRAJ CHHAGANLAL SHAH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

3 years invoking the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer made the addition of the same by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act. However, on appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) held that the same are taxable under the provisions of section

AADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

bogus purchase by assessee received by DRI from CCE which was passed on to revenue authorities was 'tangible material outside record to initiate valid reassessment proceedings. Thus there was no borrowed satisfaction on the part of the AO. There was independent application of mind on the part of the AO. Further reliance is placed upon clause (b) of explanation

VILSON ROOFING PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLHAPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR

The appeal of the assessee is DISMISSED

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 956/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Vilson Roofing Products Pvt. Ltd., 1St Lane, Opp. Prataprao Jagdale Hall, Rajarampuri, Kolhapur, Pin – 416 008 . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan: Aaccv0661M

253(1)(a) of the Act on following grounds; “1. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the notice issued u/s 148 is bad in law. ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 14 Vilson Roofing Products Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.956/PUN/2023 A.Y. 2009-10 2. On the basis of facts

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 NASSHIK, NASHIK vs. HARSH CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Circle – 1, Harsh Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Nashik Sanskruti, Murkute Colony, Vs. New Pandit Colony, Sharanpur Road, Nashik – 422002 Pan: Aacch2277H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj S. Dandgaval Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 03-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.12.2023 Of The Cit(A) / Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue In The Grounds Of Appeal Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Restricting The Disallowance To Rs.2,24,191/- As Against Rs.1,25,51,607/- Proposed By The Assessing Officer In The Remand Report As Against Rs.4,38,96,880/- Added By Him In The Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

bogus and non- genuine due to non compliance of notices issued u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued to various sub-contractor. Further, during the remand report proceeding, the Ld. Assessing officer has proposed the addition of Rs.1,25,51,607/-instead of addition of Rs.4,41,21,079/- as earlier made after due verification, details