M/S SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT , CIRCLE- 5, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1864 To 1868/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa (Bk), Pune- 411048. Pan : Aaccs3670F Appellant Respondent

254 of the IT Act was passed and as per the direction of the Tribunal the addition on bogus purchase was restricted to Rs.2,03,116/- being 10% of the bogus purchases of Rs.20,31,158/- earlier determined by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, fresh penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated. 7. In response to notice of penalty

M/S SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT , CIRCLE- 5, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1864 To 1868/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa (Bk), Pune- 411048. Pan : Aaccs3670F Appellant Respondent

254 of the IT Act was passed and as per the direction of the Tribunal the addition on bogus purchase was restricted to Rs.2,03,116/- being 10% of the bogus purchases of Rs.20,31,158/- earlier determined by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, fresh penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated. 7. In response to notice of penalty

M/S SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT , CIRCLE- 5, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1864 To 1868/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa (Bk), Pune- 411048. Pan : Aaccs3670F Appellant Respondent

254 of the IT Act was passed and as per the direction of the Tribunal the addition on bogus purchase was restricted to Rs.2,03,116/- being 10% of the bogus purchases of Rs.20,31,158/- earlier determined by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, fresh penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated. 7. In response to notice of penalty

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

purchaser, therefore, the transaction was not undertaken at arm‟s length. C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 (iv) The Hon‟ble High Court of Republic Singapore had not determined the actual sale consideration and the whole transaction is premeditate, is dubious transactions entered into with the intention of claiming loss for availing the benefit of losses and proceeded to apply the ratio

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

purchaser, therefore, the transaction was not undertaken at arm‟s length. C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 (iv) The Hon‟ble High Court of Republic Singapore had not determined the actual sale consideration and the whole transaction is premeditate, is dubious transactions entered into with the intention of claiming loss for availing the benefit of losses and proceeded to apply the ratio

DILAWAR SHAIKH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.933 To 935/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 Dilawar Shaikh, Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Super Profiles Pvt. Ltd., 13-A, Parvati Industrial Estate, Pune – Satara Road, Pune-411026. Pan : Aljps3300F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. D. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessees Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Commonly Dated 23.032018 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.933/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Are Stated Herein.

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings are initiated. In support of this proposition, he relied upon the plethora of decisions placed on record. 10. Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the addition was made only on estimate basis and, therefore, the question of levy of penalty does not arise. 11. On the other

DILAWAR SHAIKH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.933 To 935/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 Dilawar Shaikh, Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Super Profiles Pvt. Ltd., 13-A, Parvati Industrial Estate, Pune – Satara Road, Pune-411026. Pan : Aljps3300F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. D. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessees Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Commonly Dated 23.032018 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.933/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Are Stated Herein.

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings are initiated. In support of this proposition, he relied upon the plethora of decisions placed on record. 10. Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the addition was made only on estimate basis and, therefore, the question of levy of penalty does not arise. 11. On the other

DILAWAR SHAIKH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.933 To 935/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 Dilawar Shaikh, Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Super Profiles Pvt. Ltd., 13-A, Parvati Industrial Estate, Pune – Satara Road, Pune-411026. Pan : Aljps3300F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. D. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessees Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Commonly Dated 23.032018 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.933/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Are Stated Herein.

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings are initiated. In support of this proposition, he relied upon the plethora of decisions placed on record. 10. Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the addition was made only on estimate basis and, therefore, the question of levy of penalty does not arise. 11. On the other

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -2 , PUNE vs. M/S. M.B. GHARPURAY ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.550/Pun/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Dcit, Circle-2, Pune. M/S.M.B.Gharpuray Engineers & Vs Contractors, 838, Anohar Residency, Bmcc Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aacfm 4994 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Dcit, Circle-2, Pune Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune Dated 28.07.2020 Emanating Out Of The Penalty Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called As ‘The Act’). The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Failed To Appreciate That The Addition Was Not Made On Estimate But On Finding That Purchases Were Bogus. 2) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Failed To Appreciate The Finding Of The Assessing Officer At Para 4.6 Of The Assessment Order Wherein It Is Clearly Stated That The Assessee Is Regularly Inflating

section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 29.03.2019 for the A.Y. 2011-12. The ld.AR explained that quantum of penalty is only Rs.1,05,656/-, therefore, the ld.AR pleaded that as per CBET Circular, the appeal is below the tax limit mentioned in the CBDT Circular and hence not maintainable. He relied on the order of Chandrasekhar A.Joshi

GORUR INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW PANVEL vs. DY. CIT, PANVEL CIRCLE, PANVEL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

254 r.w.s. 144B of the Act giving effect to the orders of ITAT which is at Page No. 2 of the paper book. On perusal of Para No. 4 of the assessment order dated 29-09-2021 we note that the AO added the bogus purchases to the total income of the assessee and held that the assessee is eligible

KURUVILA ALEXANDER,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 8(1), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Allowed for Statistical

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.561/Pun/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Kuruvila Alexander, The Income Tax Officer, Gate No.2139/4, Vs Ward-8(1), Pune. Nanekarwadi, . Opp. Vijay Oil Mills, Chaka, Pune – 410501. Pan: Aanpa 4943 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri M K Kulkarni – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-6, Pune For The A.Y.2011-12 Dated 28.08.2020. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Penalty Levied By A.0. Under S.271(L)(C) For Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & Without Proper Initiation Of Such Proceedings & The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Penalty Levied Without Application Of Mind & Appreciation Of Legal Position Placed Before Her, The Penalty Levied Is Not Sustainable In Law. It Be Quashed.

1), Pune (A) 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law though without appreciating the legal position surrendered such bogus purchases for taxation the law with the help of judicial precedents says and clarifies differently. It is settled law that assessment and penalty proceeding having different connotations the penalty cannot be levied and sustained

SMT. SUNITA G. DESAI,,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, RATNAGIRI

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2761/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Smt.Sunitag.Desai, The Income Tax Officer, Master Plaza, Jakadevi, Vs Ward-1, Ratnagiri. Khalgaon, Ratnagiri. Pan: Abopd 2868 A Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 21/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 16/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Kolhapur Dated 01.09.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Action Of The Learned Ito, Ward-1, Ratnagiri (Hereinafter Referred To As The Learned Ao) In Assessing Total Income Of Appellant At Rs, 50,34,254/- Instead Of Returned Income Of Rs. 4,05,200/-. 2. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Erred In Law & On Facts In Sustaining The Additionof Rs.33,79,054/- Made By The Learned Ao U/S 69C Of The Ita, 1961 For The Bogus Purchases From M/S. Adijin Enterprises & M/S. Hiten Enterprises; Without Appreciating That, No Any Enquiries Were Carried Out By The L-T Authorities In This Regard. 3. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur & The Learned Ao Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating That, The Said Bogus Purchases Of Rs. 33,79,054/- Were, Intact, Capitalized To Plant & Machinery & Depreciation Of Only Rs. 5,06,958/- (I.E. 15% Of Rs. 33,79,054/-) Was Claimed As A Deduction By Appellant During Ay 2009-10. The Learned

254/- instead of returned income of Rs. 4,05,200/-. 2. The learned CIT(A)-2, Kolhapur erred in law and on facts in sustaining the additionof Rs.33,79,054/- made by the learned AO u/s 69C of the ITA, 1961 for the bogus purchases from M/s. Adijin Enterprises and M/s. Hiten Enterprises; without appreciating that, no any enquiries were

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,, PUNE

254 (SC) and the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Somaiya Orgeno- Chemicals Ltd. [1994] 74 Taxman 206 (Bombay) for the aforesaid proposition. In such circumstances, where the assessee has collected the contribution to the ERF from the owner (insured) then he is only acting as a custodian of the said fund and the said

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

254 (SC) and the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Somaiya Orgeno- Chemicals Ltd. [1994] 74 Taxman 206 (Bombay) for the aforesaid proposition. In such circumstances, where the assessee has collected the contribution to the ERF from the owner (insured) then he is only acting as a custodian of the said fund and the said

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

254 CTR 127), ),(Refer Page No. 177 – 181 of Paperbook for Case Laws)in which also allowability or otherwise of deduction u/s. 80-IB of the Act with respect to the undisclosed income in the form of cash was the subject matter of consideration. The relevant substantial question of law on which decision was sought by the revenue read

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

254 CTR 127), ),(Refer Page No. 177 – 181 of Paperbook for Case Laws)in which also allowability or otherwise of deduction u/s. 80-IB of the Act with respect to the undisclosed income in the form of cash was the subject matter of consideration. The relevant substantial question of law on which decision was sought by the revenue read

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

254 CTR 127), ),(Refer Page No. 177 – 181 of Paperbook for Case Laws)in which also allowability or otherwise of deduction u/s. 80-IB of the Act with respect to the undisclosed income in the form of cash was the subject matter of consideration. The relevant substantial question of law on which decision was sought by the revenue read

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, KOLHAPUR vs. VIJAYKUMAR RAJARAM SHAH,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

254 CTR 127), ),(Refer Page No. 177 – 181 of Paperbook for Case Laws)in which also allowability or otherwise of deduction u/s. 80-IB of the Act with respect to the undisclosed income in the form of cash was the subject matter of consideration. The relevant substantial question of law on which decision was sought by the revenue read