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

bogus purchases was restored back by the Tribunal to the AO for afresh computation which was the very basis of penalty & therefore it was inevitable for the AO to issue fresh penalty notices. Thus, this ground no.2 is also dismissed. 16. In ground no.3 & 4, the assessee has challenged the imposition of penalty u/s 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

bogus purchases was restored back by the Tribunal to the AO for afresh computation which was the very basis of penalty & therefore it was inevitable for the AO to issue fresh penalty notices. Thus, this ground no.2 is also dismissed. 16. In ground no.3 & 4, the assessee has challenged the imposition of penalty u/s 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

bogus purchases was restored back by the Tribunal to the AO for afresh computation which was the very basis of penalty & therefore it was inevitable for the AO to issue fresh penalty notices. Thus, this ground no.2 is also dismissed. 16. In ground no.3 & 4, the assessee has challenged the imposition of penalty u/s 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

bogus purchases was restored back by the Tribunal to the AO for afresh computation which was the very basis of penalty & therefore it was inevitable for the AO to issue fresh penalty notices. Thus, this ground no.2 is also dismissed. 16. In ground no.3 & 4, the assessee has challenged the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1

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. The perusal of assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act reveals that in the assessment order AO had recorded satisfaction for “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income”. Thereafter, in the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, AO at Para 6 of Page 3 held that assessee has “concealed the particulars

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

purchases were made out of funds available in the books but in respect of bogus creditors payments were made out of unaccounted funds but bills in the name of these creditors were shown outstanding (though paid) till the end of financial year showing it as creditors. For making unaccounted bills the assessee used to pay bearer cheques in the names

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

section 133(6) of A.Ys.2009-10 to 2011-12 the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the assessee failing to file any documentary evidence of delivery of goods, addition is to be upheld in the hands of assessee on account of such bogus purchases. IV. The next instance is the case of goods

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

section 133(6) of A.Ys.2009-10 to 2011-12 the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the assessee failing to file any documentary evidence of delivery of goods, addition is to be upheld in the hands of assessee on account of such bogus purchases. IV. The next instance is the case of goods

JITENDRA PRATAPRAO SONAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

bogus purchases from various parties who were declared hawala dealers by the Sales Tax Department. The aggregate purchases made by the assessee from such parties was to the tune of Rs.82,23,904/-. AO noted that on being confronted, assessee could not provide all the supporting documents to ascertain the veracity of purchases but however assessee offered additional income

JITENDRA PRATAPRAO SONAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

bogus purchases from various parties who were declared hawala dealers by the Sales Tax Department. The aggregate purchases made by the assessee from such parties was to the tune of Rs.82,23,904/-. AO noted that on being confronted, assessee could not provide all the supporting documents to ascertain the veracity of purchases but however assessee offered additional income

JITENDRA PRATAPRAO SONAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

bogus purchases from various parties who were declared hawala dealers by the Sales Tax Department. The aggregate purchases made by the assessee from such parties was to the tune of Rs.82,23,904/-. AO noted that on being confronted, assessee could not provide all the supporting documents to ascertain the veracity of purchases but however assessee offered additional income

MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

bogus\ncompanies?\nAns: The accommodation entries by way of unsecured loans were taken to\npurchase properties. I did not have the amounts in the bank accounts but\nhad the cash. Therefore to purchase the properties, I had to do this\nexercise.\n6\nITA No.1178/PUN/2023\nITA No.2017/PUN/2024\nThe return of income for AY 2011-12 filed on 29/09/2011 by the assessee

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

bogus\ncompanies?\nAns: The accommodation entries by way of unsecured loans were taken to\npurchase properties. I did not have the amounts in the bank accounts but\nhad the cash. Therefore to purchase the properties, I had to do this\nexercise.\n6\nITA No.1178/PUN/2023\nITA No.2017/PUN/2024\nThe return of income for AY 2011-12 filed on 29/09/2011 by the assessee

ANKEET COTTAGE INDUSTRIES ,,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (3),, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

B-19, MIDC Area, Paithan, Taluka-Paithan, Distt.-Aurangabad PAN : AADFA9560C .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1(3), Aurangabad ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri S.N. Puranik Revenue by : Shri S.P. Walimbe सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 02-12-2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 16-12-2019 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI