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

5. The case of the Revenue is that once the assessee made a statement u/s 132(4) of the Act declaring bogus bills and offering equal amount for taxation, the same cannot be retracted as it constitutes `evidence’. In order to appreciate this contention, let us have a look at the mandate of sub-section (4) of section 132 which

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

5. The case of the Revenue is that once the assessee made a statement u/s 132(4) of the Act declaring bogus bills and offering equal amount for taxation, the same cannot be retracted as it constitutes `evidence’. In order to appreciate this contention, let us have a look at the mandate of sub-section (4) of section 132 which

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

5. The case of the Revenue is that once the assessee made a statement u/s 132(4) of the Act declaring bogus bills and offering equal amount for taxation, the same cannot be retracted as it constitutes `evidence’. In order to appreciate this contention, let us have a look at the mandate of sub-section (4) of section 132 which

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

5. The case of the Revenue is that once the assessee made a statement u/s 132(4) of the Act declaring bogus bills and offering equal amount for taxation, the same cannot be retracted as it constitutes `evidence’. In order to appreciate this contention, let us have a look at the mandate of sub-section (4) of section 132 which

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

5. The case of the Revenue is that once the assessee made a statement u/s 132(4) of the Act declaring bogus bills and offering equal amount for taxation, the same cannot be retracted as it constitutes `evidence’. In order to appreciate this contention, let us have a look at the mandate of sub-section (4) of section 132 which

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

5. The case of the Revenue is that once the assessee made a statement u/s 132(4) of the Act declaring bogus bills and offering equal amount for taxation, the same cannot be retracted as it constitutes `evidence’. In order to appreciate this contention, let us have a look at the mandate of sub-section (4) of section 132 which

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

5. The case of the Revenue is that once the assessee made a statement u/s 132(4) of the Act declaring bogus bills and offering equal amount for taxation, the same cannot be retracted as it constitutes `evidence’. In order to appreciate this contention, let us have a look at the mandate of sub-section (4) of section 132 which

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

5. The case of the Revenue is that once the assessee made a statement u/s 132(4) of the Act declaring bogus bills and offering equal amount for taxation, the same cannot be retracted as it constitutes `evidence’. In order to appreciate this contention, let us have a look at the mandate of sub-section (4) of section 132 which

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

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

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. 274 of the Act. In response to initiation of penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted reply, which was not found acceptable to the Assessing Officer and he levied penalty vide order dated 22.03.2018 by observing that

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

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

5 Sangeeta B. Mangrule A,Y. 2015-16 There is urgent need for having an effective preventive and punitive action in such matters to prevent recurrence of such instance. We recommend the following measures in this regard: i.) SEBI needs to have and effective monitoring mechanism to study such unusual rise of stock prices of companies while such a rise

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

purchases are bogus or sundry creditors are fictitious. In the absence of finding on the very nature of sundry creditors appearing, it is impossible to decide as to under what provisions of the Act these items can be brought to tax. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer had failed to examine the issue in proper

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

purchases are bogus or sundry creditors are fictitious. In the absence of finding on the very nature of sundry creditors appearing, it is impossible to decide as to under what provisions of the Act these items can be brought to tax. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer had failed to examine the issue in proper

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

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