DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, AURANGABAD vs. METAROLLS ISPAT PVT. LTD, JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

bogus purchases of\nRs.13,80,63,994/- will meet the ends of justice. We, therefore, set aside the order\nof the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to adopt the profit rate of 5% on\nthe total purchases of Rs.13,80,63,994/- and restrict the addition to Rs.69,03,200/-.\nThe order

SHREYA JAYANT JOSHI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.47 & 48/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

32 days. Therefore, the delay in filing of the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. Smt. Shreya Jayant Joshi 7. Before me, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee filed copies of the purchase bills from the party with whom the assessee made the purchases. However, the AO/CIT(A) did not accept the said bills

SHREYA JAYANT JOSHI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.47 & 48/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

32 days. Therefore, the delay in filing of the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. Smt. Shreya Jayant Joshi 7. Before me, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee filed copies of the purchase bills from the party with whom the assessee made the purchases. However, the AO/CIT(A) did not accept the said bills

ABDUL REHMAN ABDUL RAUF CHOUDHARY,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 9(1),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

32,820/- for the assessment year 2010-11 and Rs.2,01,780/- for the assessment year 2011-12 respectively. Based on the information received from the Sales Tax Department, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee was a beneficiary of the bogus purchases bills from the entry operators. As per the said information, the assessee was a beneficiary

ABDUL REHMAN ABDUL RAUF CHOUDHARY,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 9(1),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

32,820/- for the assessment year 2010-11 and Rs.2,01,780/- for the assessment year 2011-12 respectively. Based on the information received from the Sales Tax Department, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee was a beneficiary of the bogus purchases bills from the entry operators. As per the said information, the assessee was a beneficiary

CO-OPERATION METALS,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(3), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

bogus purchases? 3. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter any of the above grounds of appeal. 7. The Ld. DR heavily relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC without appreciating the facts properly has reduced the addition to Rs.15,97,740/- as against Rs.84,32,503/- made

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. COOPERATION METALS, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

bogus purchases? 3. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter any of the above grounds of appeal. 7. The Ld. DR heavily relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC without appreciating the facts properly has reduced the addition to Rs.15,97,740/- as against Rs.84,32,503/- made

CO-OPERATION METALS,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(3), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

bogus purchases? 3. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter any of the above grounds of appeal. 7. The Ld. DR heavily relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC without appreciating the facts properly has reduced the addition to Rs.15,97,740/- as against Rs.84,32,503/- made

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. COOPERATION METALS, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

bogus purchases? 3. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter any of the above grounds of appeal. 7. The Ld. DR heavily relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC without appreciating the facts properly has reduced the addition to Rs.15,97,740/- as against Rs.84,32,503/- made

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. COOPERATION METALS, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

bogus purchases? 3. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter any of the above grounds of appeal. 7. The Ld. DR heavily relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC without appreciating the facts properly has reduced the addition to Rs.15,97,740/- as against Rs.84,32,503/- made

CO-OPERATION METALS,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(3), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

bogus purchases? 3. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter any of the above grounds of appeal. 7. The Ld. DR heavily relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC without appreciating the facts properly has reduced the addition to Rs.15,97,740/- as against Rs.84,32,503/- made

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"

32,946/- 3 M/s. Anmol Industries Rs.19,10,064/- 4 M/s. Manav Impex Rs.36,53,286/- 5 M/s. Alliance Steel Industries Rs.1,45,54,696/- Total Rs.2,78,55,984/- 3. The Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 27-03-2015 passed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 made addition of the entire amount held to be bogus purchases

BHISE INTERNATIONAL AUTO INDUSTRIES,,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2913/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Bhise International Auto Industries, Plot No.7, Bhise Bungalow, Bhadrapad, Near Ambad Police Station Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422010 …. Pan: Aaifb8245Q Vs.

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 2 Bhise International Auto Industries 1) The Hon. CIT (A) was not right in restricting the disallowance of alleged Hawala purchases instead of granting 100% relief: The Hon. CIT (A) in first appeal has allowed a partial

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

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

purchases is also bogus and the assessee would have earned only commission for providing such false entries in its books of account. He, therefore, added an amount of Rs.3,60,11,804/- being the commission @ 2% on such bogus sales amounting to Rs.1,80,05,90,205/- as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act. 7. Before

SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

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 18 Serum Institute of India Ltd., A.Yrs. 2011-12 and 2012-13 goods, addition is to be upheld in the hands of assessee on account of such bogus purchases. IV. The next

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

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 18 Serum Institute of India Ltd., A.Yrs. 2011-12 and 2012-13 goods, addition is to be upheld in the hands of assessee on account of such bogus purchases. IV. The next

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

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 18 Serum Institute of India Ltd., A.Yrs. 2011-12 and 2012-13 goods, addition is to be upheld in the hands of assessee on account of such bogus purchases. IV. The next

SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

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 18 Serum Institute of India Ltd., A.Yrs. 2011-12 and 2012-13 goods, addition is to be upheld in the hands of assessee on account of such bogus purchases. IV. The next