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

section 147/148 of the Act. We find that the said issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and referring to paras 4 and 5 of the appellate order, we uphold the same and dismiss the ground of appeal No.1 raised

M/S. SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1778 To 1782/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa(Bk), Pune – 411 048. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaccs3670F

36 thereof. That being the case, we quote the CBDT’s latest circular dated 08/08/2019 prescribing minimum tax effect of Rs.50,00,000/- in all of its appeals pending as well as to be filed, before the tribunal with retrospective effect. We thus decline the Revenue’s instant three appeals for this precise reason. These ITA Nos. 06 to 08/PUN/2020

M/S. SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1778 To 1782/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa(Bk), Pune – 411 048. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaccs3670F

36 thereof. That being the case, we quote the CBDT’s latest circular dated 08/08/2019 prescribing minimum tax effect of Rs.50,00,000/- in all of its appeals pending as well as to be filed, before the tribunal with retrospective effect. We thus decline the Revenue’s instant three appeals for this precise reason. These ITA Nos. 06 to 08/PUN/2020

M/S. SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1778 To 1782/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa(Bk), Pune – 411 048. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaccs3670F

36 thereof. That being the case, we quote the CBDT’s latest circular dated 08/08/2019 prescribing minimum tax effect of Rs.50,00,000/- in all of its appeals pending as well as to be filed, before the tribunal with retrospective effect. We thus decline the Revenue’s instant three appeals for this precise reason. These ITA Nos. 06 to 08/PUN/2020

M/S. SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1778 To 1782/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa(Bk), Pune – 411 048. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaccs3670F

36 thereof. That being the case, we quote the CBDT’s latest circular dated 08/08/2019 prescribing minimum tax effect of Rs.50,00,000/- in all of its appeals pending as well as to be filed, before the tribunal with retrospective effect. We thus decline the Revenue’s instant three appeals for this precise reason. These ITA Nos. 06 to 08/PUN/2020

M/S. SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1778 To 1782/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa(Bk), Pune – 411 048. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaccs3670F

36 thereof. That being the case, we quote the CBDT’s latest circular dated 08/08/2019 prescribing minimum tax effect of Rs.50,00,000/- in all of its appeals pending as well as to be filed, before the tribunal with retrospective effect. We thus decline the Revenue’s instant three appeals for this precise reason. These ITA Nos. 06 to 08/PUN/2020

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

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

36,451 Total 17,49,83,488 3,14,97,032 20,64,80,520 19. However, we find the Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment order, has made the entire addition of bogus / untested purchases and these orders of the Assessing Officer passed u/s 143(3) / 147 were passed after the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Although

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

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

36,451\nTotal\n17,49,83,488\n3,14,97,032\n20,64,80,520\n19. However, we find the Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment order,\nhas made the entire addition of bogus / untested purchases and these orders of the\nAssessing Officer passed u/s 143(3) / 147 were passed after the order of the Ld.\nCIT(A). Although

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

36,630/- by making addition @ 5% of the unproved purchases from the vendors declared as hawala parties. We find the CIT-III, Pune set aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not verified all the relevant issues to determine the correct taxable

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

36,630/- by making addition @ 5% of the unproved purchases from the vendors declared as hawala parties. We find the CIT-III, Pune set aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not verified all the relevant issues to determine the correct taxable

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

36,630/- by making addition @ 5% of the unproved purchases from the vendors declared as hawala parties. We find the CIT-III, Pune set aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not verified all the relevant issues to determine the correct taxable

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

36,630/- by making addition @ 5% of the unproved purchases from the vendors declared as hawala parties. We find the CIT-III, Pune set aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not verified all the relevant issues to determine the correct taxable

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

36,630/- by making addition @ 5% of the unproved purchases from the vendors declared as hawala parties. We find the CIT-III, Pune set aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not verified all the relevant issues to determine the correct taxable

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

36,630/- by making addition @ 5% of the unproved purchases from the vendors declared as hawala parties. We find the CIT-III, Pune set aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not verified all the relevant issues to determine the correct taxable

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

36,46,197/- 37,92,68,944/- 2015-16 27,54,93,430/- 28,04,03,784/- 5. From the above table, it is evident that the Assessing Officer made certain additions (i.e. Rs.42,24,481/- for A.Y. 2009-10) on account of bogus purchases calculating at the rate of 2% of URD purchases made in cash

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

36,46,197/- 37,92,68,944/- 2015-16 27,54,93,430/- 28,04,03,784/- 5. From the above table, it is evident that the Assessing Officer made certain additions (i.e. Rs.42,24,481/- for A.Y. 2009-10) on account of bogus purchases calculating at the rate of 2% of URD purchases made in cash

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

36,46,197/- 37,92,68,944/- 2015-16 27,54,93,430/- 28,04,03,784/- 5. From the above table, it is evident that the Assessing Officer made certain additions (i.e. Rs.42,24,481/- for A.Y. 2009-10) on account of bogus purchases calculating at the rate of 2% of URD purchases made in cash

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

36,46,197/- 37,92,68,944/- 2015-16 27,54,93,430/- 28,04,03,784/- 5. From the above table, it is evident that the Assessing Officer made certain additions (i.e. Rs.42,24,481/- for A.Y. 2009-10) on account of bogus purchases calculating at the rate of 2% of URD purchases made in cash