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

37 and 38/PUN/2016. There is no cross appeal by the Revenue for the A.Y. 2009- 10. Since there are common issues involved in all these appeals they are clubbed together and are taken up for adjudication in this composite order for the sake of convenience. We shall first take up the asessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10. Assessment Year

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

37 and 38/PUN/2016. There is no cross appeal by the Revenue for the A.Y. 2009- 10. Since there are common issues involved in all these appeals they are clubbed together and are taken up for adjudication in this composite order for the sake of convenience. We shall first take up the asessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10. Assessment Year

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

37 and 38/PUN/2016. There is no cross appeal by the Revenue for the A.Y. 2009- 10. Since there are common issues involved in all these appeals they are clubbed together and are taken up for adjudication in this composite order for the sake of convenience. We shall first take up the asessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10. Assessment Year

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

bogus / untested purchases. The grounds raised by the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed. 34. The ground of appeal No.4 by the Revenue relates to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.17,42,770/-. 35. Facts of the case in brief are that during the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer asked the assessee

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

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

37,72,022\n3\nM/s. Pawan Enterprises Prop.\nRamswaroop Agarwal\n1,82,51,360\n32,85,245\n2,15,36,605\n4\nM/s. Divya Enterprises Prop.\nSagar Suraj Agrawal\n9,79,32,384\n1,76,27,829\n11,55,60,213\n5\nM/s. Khushi Traders Prop.\nBabusha Kasbe

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. ANIL JAIRAM GOEL, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

37,366/- instead of Rs.2,53,72,426/- without considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of N.K. proteins Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (769 of 2017) wherein the apex court has confirmed 100% addition made on account of bogus purchases rather than considering only the profit margin on the addition made

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. ANIL JAIRAM GOEL, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

37,366/- instead of Rs.2,53,72,426/- without considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of N.K. proteins Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (769 of 2017) wherein the apex court has confirmed 100% addition made on account of bogus purchases rather than considering only the profit margin on the addition made

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

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 on ad-hoc basis. This

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

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 on ad-hoc basis. This

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

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 on ad-hoc basis. This

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

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 on ad-hoc basis. This

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

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 on ad-hoc basis. This

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

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 on ad-hoc basis. This

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

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 on ad-hoc basis. This

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHAPUR vs. NATHMAL RUPCHAND JAIN, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

bogus purchase entries from M/s. Rishabh Trading Company, which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC had admitted therefore, without appreciating the facts properly the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC was not justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC be reversed and that of the Assessing

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. TAPARIA TOOLS LIMITED, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1337/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

bogus purchases amounting to Rs.87,64,74,079/-is being made u/s 37(1) of the Act, and added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty u/s 270A(9) of misreporting of income is being initiated. Section

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"

37. We do not see how in the aforesaid fact situation a different view could have been taken for the assessment year 2002-03. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules merely prescribe a formula for determination of expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part

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"

37. We do not see how in the aforesaid fact situation a different view could have been taken for the assessment year 2002-03. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules merely prescribe a formula for determination of expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part