DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

340/-. He found that the search action divulged that the assessee was inflating expenses by recording bogus steel purchase bills from Mumbai based parties. Prior to search, a survey u/s.133A was carried out at the business premises of the assessee, which was converted into the instant search action. In the statement u/s.133A of the Act, the assessee was confronted with

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

340/-. He found that the search action divulged that the assessee was inflating expenses by recording bogus steel purchase bills from Mumbai based parties. Prior to search, a survey u/s.133A was carried out at the business premises of the assessee, which was converted into the instant search action. In the statement u/s.133A of the Act, the assessee was confronted with

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

340/-. He found that the search action divulged that the assessee was inflating expenses by recording bogus steel purchase bills from Mumbai based parties. Prior to search, a survey u/s.133A was carried out at the business premises of the assessee, which was converted into the instant search action. In the statement u/s.133A of the Act, the assessee was confronted with

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

340/-. He found that the search action divulged that the assessee was inflating expenses by recording bogus steel purchase bills from Mumbai based parties. Prior to search, a survey u/s.133A was carried out at the business premises of the assessee, which was converted into the instant search action. In the statement u/s.133A of the Act, the assessee was confronted with

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

340/-. He found that the search action divulged that the assessee was inflating expenses by recording bogus steel purchase bills from Mumbai based parties. Prior to search, a survey u/s.133A was carried out at the business premises of the assessee, which was converted into the instant search action. In the statement u/s.133A of the Act, the assessee was confronted with

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

340/-. He found that the search action divulged that the assessee was inflating expenses by recording bogus steel purchase bills from Mumbai based parties. Prior to search, a survey u/s.133A was carried out at the business premises of the assessee, which was converted into the instant search action. In the statement u/s.133A of the Act, the assessee was confronted with

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

340/-. He found that the search action divulged that the assessee was inflating expenses by recording bogus steel purchase bills from Mumbai based parties. Prior to search, a survey u/s.133A was carried out at the business premises of the assessee, which was converted into the instant search action. In the statement u/s.133A of the Act, the assessee was confronted with

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

340/-. He found that the search action divulged that the assessee was inflating expenses by recording bogus steel purchase bills from Mumbai based parties. Prior to search, a survey u/s.133A was carried out at the business premises of the assessee, which was converted into the instant search action. In the statement u/s.133A of the Act, the assessee was confronted with

M/S. GERA DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee in assessment year 2010-11 is allowed and appeal of assessee in assessment year 2011-12 is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1807/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Gera Developments Pvt. Ltd., 200, Gera Plaza, Boat Club Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aaacg6703F Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(2), Pune

340 ITR 66 (Bom), where the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment have not been furnished to the assessee till completion of assessment, re-assessment order could not be upheld. The assessee also filed comments to the letter of Assessing Officer addressed to CIT(A) dated 11.02.2016 vide his letter dated 10.03.2016 and stressed that the statements in re-assessment

M/S. GERA DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee in assessment year 2010-11 is allowed and appeal of assessee in assessment year 2011-12 is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1807/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Gera Developments Pvt. Ltd., 200, Gera Plaza, Boat Club Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aaacg6703F Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(2), Pune

340 ITR 66 (Bom), where the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment have not been furnished to the assessee till completion of assessment, re-assessment order could not be upheld. The assessee also filed comments to the letter of Assessing Officer addressed to CIT(A) dated 11.02.2016 vide his letter dated 10.03.2016 and stressed that the statements in re-assessment

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

bogus expenses amounting to Rs.89,79,588/- under the head ‘Purchase of stilt and cement’ for the year under consideration, which was added in his hands. The assessee had sought set off with the disclosure already made and also it was contended that the said income offered in respect of purchases was part of business income and infrastructural activities

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

bogus expenses amounting to Rs.89,79,588/- under the head ‘Purchase of stilt and cement’ for the year under consideration, which was added in his hands. The assessee had sought set off with the disclosure already made and also it was contended that the said income offered in respect of purchases was part of business income and infrastructural activities

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

bogus expenses amounting to Rs.89,79,588/- under the head ‘Purchase of stilt and cement’ for the year under consideration, which was added in his hands. The assessee had sought set off with the disclosure already made and also it was contended that the said income offered in respect of purchases was part of business income and infrastructural activities

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

bogus expenses amounting to Rs.89,79,588/- under the head ‘Purchase of stilt and cement’ for the year under consideration, which was added in his hands. The assessee had sought set off with the disclosure already made and also it was contended that the said income offered in respect of purchases was part of business income and infrastructural activities

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

bogus expenses amounting to Rs.89,79,588/- under the head ‘Purchase of stilt and cement’ for the year under consideration, which was added in his hands. The assessee had sought set off with the disclosure already made and also it was contended that the said income offered in respect of purchases was part of business income and infrastructural activities

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

bogus expenses amounting to Rs.89,79,588/- under the head ‘Purchase of stilt and cement’ for the year under consideration, which was added in his hands. The assessee had sought set off with the disclosure already made and also it was contended that the said income offered in respect of purchases was part of business income and infrastructural activities

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, KOLHAPUR vs. VIJAYKUMAR RAJARAM SHAH,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

bogus expenses amounting to Rs.89,79,588/- under the head ‘Purchase of stilt and cement’ for the year under consideration, which was added in his hands. The assessee had sought set off with the disclosure already made and also it was contended that the said income offered in respect of purchases was part of business income and infrastructural activities

VIDYARTHI VIKAS PRATISHTHAN JALGAON,JALGAON vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT (NFAC), DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1194/Pun/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Vidyarthi Vikas Pratishthan Assessment Unit, Income Jalgaon, V Tax Department(Nfac) Gat No.148, Yashwant Nagar, S Ramanand Nagar, Maharashtra – 425001. Pan: Aaatv6624R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishnan – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 01/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 02/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21 Passed On 20.09.2023 Emanating From Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 20.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Grounds Of Appeal Filed Before Him By The Assessee & In Vidyarthi Vikas Pratishthan Jalgaon[A]

340/- Building Maintenance Rs.74,476/- Computer Expenses Rs.55,693/- Electrical Expenses Rs.2,23,717/- Electrical Maintenance Rs.17,687/- GST Paid Rs.3,66,242/- License Fee Rs.3,250/- Municiple Tax Rs.36,241/- Postage and Telegram Rs.170/- Printing and Stationery Rs.84,937/- Remuneration to Doctors and Nurses Rs.32,97,914/- Remuneration to Pharmacists and Other Staff Rs.11,87,548/- Shop Rent Rs.6