DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SATARA vs. KAY BOUVET ENGINEERING LIMITED, SATARA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and both the COs filed\nby the assessee are dismissed

purchases as bogus.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "143(1)(a)", "143(3)", "133A", "131", "148", "68", "44AB", "132(4)" ], "issues": "Whether

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

bogus; when no authority to such effect existed with the learned TPO. The learned DRP erred in not deleting the entire addition proposed by the learned TPO on the above analogy as such and further erred in not proceeding with the matter instead of leaving the matter at that point, considering the scope of powers u/s 144C

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

bogus; when no authority to such effect existed with the learned TPO. The learned DRP erred in not deleting the entire addition proposed by the learned TPO on the above analogy as such and further erred in not proceeding with the matter instead of leaving the matter at that point, considering the scope of powers u/s 144C

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

bogus; when no authority to such effect existed with the learned TPO. The learned DRP erred in not deleting the entire addition proposed by the learned TPO on the above analogy as such and further erred in not proceeding with the matter instead of leaving the matter at that point, considering the scope of powers u/s 144C

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

bogus; when no authority to such effect existed with the learned TPO. The learned DRP erred in not deleting the entire addition proposed by the learned TPO on the above analogy as such and further erred in not proceeding with the matter instead of leaving the matter at that point, considering the scope of powers u/s 144C

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

bogus; when no authority to such effect existed with the learned TPO. The learned DRP erred in not deleting the entire addition proposed by the learned TPO on the above analogy as such and further erred in not proceeding with the matter instead of leaving the matter at that point, considering the scope of powers u/s 144C

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

bogus; when no authority to such effect existed with the learned TPO. The learned DRP erred in not deleting the entire addition proposed by the learned TPO on the above analogy as such and further erred in not proceeding with the matter instead of leaving the matter at that point, considering the scope of powers u/s 144C

PRAMOD SHANKARRAO SALUNKHE,,KOLHAPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -2,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 974/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Pramod Shankarrao Salunkhe Flat No.7, Takshak Apartment, E Ward, Nagala Park, Kolhapur-416 003 Pan : Alnps2900F .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Kolhapur. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri J.P Chandrakar

Section 68 and 69C of the I.T Act, 1961”. The said Gujarat High Court‟s decision has been affirmed by the Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP filed by the assessee and accordingly, it was held by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax that the addition on percentage basis on bogus/hawala purchases is not correct

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI AKSHAY RAJESH SAMDARIYA,, JALNA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue and the Cross Objections

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2076/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

section 143(3) was passed in the case of assessee on 12-12-2011 determining the total income at Rs.5,49,701/-. Thereafter, the Department received information from the Maharashtra Sales Tax Department that the assessee has indulged in bogus purchases

M/S. ANIKET TRADING COMPANY,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.467/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

section 133(6) of 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 which have been admittedly sold

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. M/S. DELUXE TUBE TRADERS & SCRAP CENTRE,, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

3) of the Act. Further, he submitted for restricting the addition to 10% of the alleged bogus purchases. For this proposition, he relied on the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Chhabi Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT and others in ITA No.795/PUN/2014 and connected appeals, dated

M/S. DELUXE TUBE TRADERS & SCRAP CENTRE,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

3) of the Act. Further, he submitted for restricting the addition to 10% of the alleged bogus purchases. For this proposition, he relied on the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Chhabi Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT and others in ITA No.795/PUN/2014 and connected appeals, dated

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. M/S. DELUXE TUBE TRADERS & SCRAP CENTRE,, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

3) of the Act. Further, he submitted for restricting the addition to 10% of the alleged bogus purchases. For this proposition, he relied on the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Chhabi Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT and others in ITA No.795/PUN/2014 and connected appeals, dated

RAHUL CABLES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1168 To 1170/Pun/2017 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 वष"

section 263 of the Act against the AO’s order adding only 20% of the bogus purchases in the reassessment. Assessee argues that AO’s decision constitutes one of the plausible views in the matter and a debatable issue. Further, Ground No.2 also raises the issue of AO’s failure in conducting enquiries with regard to the claim relating

RAHUL CABLES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1168 To 1170/Pun/2017 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 वष"

section 263 of the Act against the AO’s order adding only 20% of the bogus purchases in the reassessment. Assessee argues that AO’s decision constitutes one of the plausible views in the matter and a debatable issue. Further, Ground No.2 also raises the issue of AO’s failure in conducting enquiries with regard to the claim relating

RAHUL CABLES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1168 To 1170/Pun/2017 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 वष"

section 263 of the Act against the AO’s order adding only 20% of the bogus purchases in the reassessment. Assessee argues that AO’s decision constitutes one of the plausible views in the matter and a debatable issue. Further, Ground No.2 also raises the issue of AO’s failure in conducting enquiries with regard to the claim relating

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. MAHALAXMI INFRAPROJECTS LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.142 To 145/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle-1, Kolhapur …. Vs. Mahalaxmi Infraprojects Ltd., 223/3, S-1, B, Malati Towers, E Ward, Tarabai Park, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm2170P आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.146 & 147/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle-1, Kolhapur …. Vs. Mahalaxmi Infraprojects Ltd., 223/3, S-1, B, Malati Towers, E Ward, Tarabai Park, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm2170P

bogus purchases and the Revenue is not in appeal; hence the claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act is restricted to additional income of Rs.35,98,460/- only, which merits to be allowed in the hands of assessee. In respect of grounds of appeal No.2 and 3

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. MAHALAXMI INFRAPROJECTS LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.142 To 145/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle-1, Kolhapur …. Vs. Mahalaxmi Infraprojects Ltd., 223/3, S-1, B, Malati Towers, E Ward, Tarabai Park, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm2170P आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.146 & 147/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle-1, Kolhapur …. Vs. Mahalaxmi Infraprojects Ltd., 223/3, S-1, B, Malati Towers, E Ward, Tarabai Park, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm2170P

bogus purchases and the Revenue is not in appeal; hence the claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act is restricted to additional income of Rs.35,98,460/- only, which merits to be allowed in the hands of assessee. In respect of grounds of appeal No.2 and 3