ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. YOG INDUSTRIES LTD.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.866 & 867/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Aurangabad-431001 …. Pan: Aaacy1238P Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Aurangabad आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.868 & 869/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Aurangabad-431001 …. Pan: Aaacy1238P Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Aurangabad आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.881 & 882/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 3, Aurangabad …. Vs. Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Aurangabad-431001 Pan: Aaacy1238P

bogus purchases and to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Again, the Assessing Officer has not come to a finding as to which limb of section 271(1

YOG INDUSTRIES LTD.,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.866 & 867/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Aurangabad-431001 …. Pan: Aaacy1238P Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Aurangabad आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.868 & 869/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Aurangabad-431001 …. Pan: Aaacy1238P Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Aurangabad आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.881 & 882/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 3, Aurangabad …. Vs. Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Aurangabad-431001 Pan: Aaacy1238P

bogus purchases and to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Again, the Assessing Officer has not come to a finding as to which limb of section 271(1

YOG INDUSTRIES LTD.,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.866 & 867/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Aurangabad-431001 …. Pan: Aaacy1238P Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Aurangabad आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.868 & 869/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Aurangabad-431001 …. Pan: Aaacy1238P Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Aurangabad आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.881 & 882/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 3, Aurangabad …. Vs. Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Aurangabad-431001 Pan: Aaacy1238P

bogus purchases and to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Again, the Assessing Officer has not come to a finding as to which limb of section 271(1

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. YOG INDUSTRIES LTD.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.866 & 867/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Aurangabad-431001 …. Pan: Aaacy1238P Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Aurangabad आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.868 & 869/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Aurangabad-431001 …. Pan: Aaacy1238P Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Aurangabad आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.881 & 882/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 3, Aurangabad …. Vs. Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Aurangabad-431001 Pan: Aaacy1238P

bogus purchases and to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Again, the Assessing Officer has not come to a finding as to which limb of section 271(1

YOG INDUSTRIES LTD.,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.866 & 867/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Aurangabad-431001 …. Pan: Aaacy1238P Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Aurangabad आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.868 & 869/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Aurangabad-431001 …. Pan: Aaacy1238P Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Aurangabad आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.881 & 882/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 3, Aurangabad …. Vs. Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Aurangabad-431001 Pan: Aaacy1238P

bogus purchases and to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Again, the Assessing Officer has not come to a finding as to which limb of section 271(1

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

section 271(1)(c). 3. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 and 2, the Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee had not concealed particulars of income and the disallowance was made out of alleged bogus purchases

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

section 271(1)(c). 3. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 and 2, the Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee had not concealed particulars of income and the disallowance was made out of alleged bogus purchases

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

section 271(1)(c). 3. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 and 2, the Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee had not concealed particulars of income and the disallowance was made out of alleged bogus purchases

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

section 271(1)(c). 3. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 and 2, the Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee had not concealed particulars of income and the disallowance was made out of alleged bogus purchases

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

section 271(1)(c). 3. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 and 2, the Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee had not concealed particulars of income and the disallowance was made out of alleged bogus purchases

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. CHETAS CONTROL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1302/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Chetas Control Systems Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.1, S.No.8+9, Chetas House, Shree Sidhatek Hsg. Society, Sutarwadi, Pashan, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411021 Pan: Aaacc7437N अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Gawli प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : None घोषणा की तारीख / सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2018

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 30.07.2014, the Assessing Officer first held the assessee to have concealed its income in the form of bogus purchases

INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. DEEPAK SHANKAR PANASKAR,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 203 & 204/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11

bogus purchases over and above the GP declared by the assessee. 7. We have considered the decision in the case of Mukeshkumar Pukhraj Mehta Vs. The Income Tax Officer (supra.) on which the ld. DR has placed reliance. In the said case, the assessee had admitted to the addition of purchases made from the hawala dealers. No supporting documents substantiating

INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. DEEPAK SHANKAR PANASKAR,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 203 & 204/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11

bogus purchases over and above the GP declared by the assessee. 7. We have considered the decision in the case of Mukeshkumar Pukhraj Mehta Vs. The Income Tax Officer (supra.) on which the ld. DR has placed reliance. In the said case, the assessee had admitted to the addition of purchases made from the hawala dealers. No supporting documents substantiating

BIPIN ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

bogus purchases by assessee from alleged Hawala dealers. In assessment year 2009-10 the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.18,64,777/- and in assessment year 2010-11 the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.54,09,276/- for similar reasons. In both the assessment years the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1

BIPIN ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

bogus purchases by assessee from alleged Hawala dealers. In assessment year 2009-10 the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.18,64,777/- and in assessment year 2010-11 the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.54,09,276/- for similar reasons. In both the assessment years the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1

LEEBA CONSTRUCTION,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

bogus purchases, AO vide order dt.28.07.2015 levied penalty of Rs.5,71,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the penalty order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dt.30.06.2016 (in appeal No.PN/CIT(A)-2/ACIT Cir/AN/2014- 15) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

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

271(1)(b)... and so on. An exercise of missing two\nseparate orders under one common order, is besides the law and\nwholly incorrect.\nD. Mis-match of authorities (without prejudice to main challenges)\nFrom a collective perusal of sections 12AA/12AB, etc. it reveals that,\npower to cancel \"registration\" u/s 12A/12AA/12AB exists with the\nsame authority which grants the same

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. GHODAWAT FOODS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

271(1)(c) dated 13-08-2014, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by placing reliance on the decision of Tribunal in assessee‟s own case for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 deleted penalty in toto. Now, the Revenue is in appeal against the order of Commissioner

AXELIA UTILITY MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.761/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

section 271(1)(c) of the Act when income returned and assessed income was the same. The taxes thereon, were immediately paid. No penalty is leviable. The penalty be quashed. 5. The appellant craves to leave, add/amend or alter any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the assessee