SHRAWAN KESHAVLAL AGRAWAL HUF,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

270/- of the purchases made from parties called as suspicious parties by holding that the said purchases are inflated particularly when the appellant has made the said purchases at prevailing market rate only. 6. The issue raised in the present appeal is against reopening of assessment and addition on account of bogus purchases. 7. Briefly, in the facts

TRIMURTI FURNANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

270/- of the purchases made from parties called as suspicious parties by holding that the said purchases are inflated particularly when the appellant has made the said purchases at prevailing market rate only. 6. The issue raised in the present appeal is against reopening of assessment and addition on account of bogus purchases. 7. Briefly, in the facts

ANITA SANJAY AGRAWAL,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

270/- of the purchases made from parties called as suspicious parties by holding that the said purchases are inflated particularly when the appellant has made the said purchases at prevailing market rate only. 6. The issue raised in the present appeal is against reopening of assessment and addition on account of bogus purchases. 7. Briefly, in the facts

SANJAY SHRAWAN AGRAWAL HUF,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

270/- of the purchases made from parties called as suspicious parties by holding that the said purchases are inflated particularly when the appellant has made the said purchases at prevailing market rate only. 6. The issue raised in the present appeal is against reopening of assessment and addition on account of bogus purchases. 7. Briefly, in the facts

SHRAWAN KESHAVLAL AGRAWAL HUF,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

270/- of the purchases made from parties called as suspicious parties by holding that the said purchases are inflated particularly when the appellant has made the said purchases at prevailing market rate only. 6. The issue raised in the present appeal is against reopening of assessment and addition on account of bogus purchases. 7. Briefly, in the facts

SHRAWAN KESHAVLAL AGRAWAL HUF,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

270/- of the purchases made from parties called as suspicious parties by holding that the said purchases are inflated particularly when the appellant has made the said purchases at prevailing market rate only. 6. The issue raised in the present appeal is against reopening of assessment and addition on account of bogus purchases. 7. Briefly, in the facts

ANITA SANJAY AGRAWAL,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

270/- of the purchases made from parties called as suspicious parties by holding that the said purchases are inflated particularly when the appellant has made the said purchases at prevailing market rate only. 6. The issue raised in the present appeal is against reopening of assessment and addition on account of bogus purchases. 7. Briefly, in the facts

ANITA SANJAY AGRAWAL,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

270/- of the purchases made from parties called as suspicious parties by holding that the said purchases are inflated particularly when the appellant has made the said purchases at prevailing market rate only. 6. The issue raised in the present appeal is against reopening of assessment and addition on account of bogus purchases. 7. Briefly, in the facts

TRIMURTI FURNANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

270/- of the purchases made from parties called as suspicious parties by holding that the said purchases are inflated particularly when the appellant has made the said purchases at prevailing market rate only. 6. The issue raised in the present appeal is against reopening of assessment and addition on account of bogus purchases. 7. Briefly, in the facts

TRIMURTI FURNANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

270/- of the purchases made from parties called as suspicious parties by holding that the said purchases are inflated particularly when the appellant has made the said purchases at prevailing market rate only. 6. The issue raised in the present appeal is against reopening of assessment and addition on account of bogus purchases. 7. Briefly, in the facts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. PAWAR PATKAR CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

270/-. Contents of Para No.8.4 of the order of CIT(A) are relevant. 4. Now the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : “1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the decision of the CIT(A) is erroneous, since the assessee has accepted in principle that purchases are bogus and thereby offered

ZENITH CONSTRUCTION CO.,,PANVEL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2289/Pun/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year : 2011-12

270/-. During the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that assessee purchased goods from 3 suppliers whose names are listed by the Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra Govt. 2 Zenith Construction Company as engaged in providing accommodation entries. AO added the entire amount of Rs.20,07,566/- as unexplained expenditure for various reasons listed out in Para No.4.5 of his order

REKHA GANESH MALGI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

Section of Sales Tax Department, AO issued notice u/s.148 of the Act to the assessee. AO found that assessee made purchases from couple of suppliers namely, Exact Metal Pvt. Ltd., Shubhlabh Metal and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs.15,20,355/-. Eventually, AO came to the conclusion that the purchases made by the assessee are bogus ones and therefore added

PURUSHOTTAM R MOGHE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

bogus sale purchase transactions with many other parties involving these twin assessees. We further note from a combined perusal of all these case files with the able assistance coming from both the learned representatives that the Assessing Officer(s) three re-assessments herein treated their respective trading business turnovers as bougs; being 3 ITA.Nos.72, 73 & 66/PUN./2021 And ITA.Nos

DCIT CIRCLE- 5, PUNE vs. SAILAB MARKETING SERVICES PVT. LTD., PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

bogus sale purchase transactions with many other parties involving these twin assessees. We further note from a combined perusal of all these case files with the able assistance coming from both the learned representatives that the Assessing Officer(s) three re-assessments herein treated their respective trading business turnovers as bougs; being 3 ITA.Nos.72, 73 & 66/PUN./2021 And ITA.Nos

DCIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE vs. SHRI PURUSHOTTAM R MOGHE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

bogus sale purchase transactions with many other parties involving these twin assessees. We further note from a combined perusal of all these case files with the able assistance coming from both the learned representatives that the Assessing Officer(s) three re-assessments herein treated their respective trading business turnovers as bougs; being 3 ITA.Nos.72, 73 & 66/PUN./2021 And ITA.Nos

PURUSHOTTAM R MOGHE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

bogus sale purchase transactions with many other parties involving these twin assessees. We further note from a combined perusal of all these case files with the able assistance coming from both the learned representatives that the Assessing Officer(s) three re-assessments herein treated their respective trading business turnovers as bougs; being 3 ITA.Nos.72, 73 & 66/PUN./2021 And ITA.Nos

SAILAB MARKETING SERVICES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

bogus sale purchase transactions with many other parties involving these twin assessees. We further note from a combined perusal of all these case files with the able assistance coming from both the learned representatives that the Assessing Officer(s) three re-assessments herein treated their respective trading business turnovers as bougs; being 3 ITA.Nos.72, 73 & 66/PUN./2021 And ITA.Nos