CHETAS CONTROL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

37,700 such beneficiaries who had used fake invoices to fraudulently claim tax deduction on such purchases. The list of beneficiaries contain the total amount of Hawala availed by the beneficiary for respective Financial Years. The information received from Sales Tax Department was duly examined and verified from record and detail of suppliers and their statements were examined

CHETAS CONTROL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

37,700 such beneficiaries who had used fake invoices to fraudulently claim tax deduction on such purchases. The list of beneficiaries contain the total amount of Hawala availed by the beneficiary for respective Financial Years. The information received from Sales Tax Department was duly examined and verified from record and detail of suppliers and their statements were examined

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

37,72,022 Rekha Deepak Agarwal 3 M/s. Pawan Enterprises Prop. 1,82,51,360 32,85,245 2,15,36,605 Ramswaroop Agarwal 4 M/s. Divya Enterprises Prop. 9,79,32,384 1,76,27,829 11,55,60,213 Sagar Suraj Agrawal 5 M/s. Khushi Traders Prop

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

1) against the initiation of re-assessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act and (2) against the 25% addition made on account of alleged bogus purchases. Revenue has not filed appeal for the A.Y. 2009-10 against the relief granted by the CIT(A). 4. Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm

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

1) against the initiation of re-assessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act and (2) against the 25% addition made on account of alleged bogus purchases. Revenue has not filed appeal for the A.Y. 2009-10 against the relief granted by the CIT(A). 4. Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm

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

1) against the initiation of re-assessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act and (2) against the 25% addition made on account of alleged bogus purchases. Revenue has not filed appeal for the A.Y. 2009-10 against the relief granted by the CIT(A). 4. Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. CHETAS CONTROL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1302/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Chetas Control Systems Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.1, S.No.8+9, Chetas House, Shree Sidhatek Hsg. Society, Sutarwadi, Pashan, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411021 Pan: Aaacc7437N अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Gawli प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : None घोषणा की तारीख / सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2018

37 of the Act. The Assessing Officer further held that the assessee has concealed particulars of its income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are being initiated separately. In the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 30.07.2014, the Assessing Officer first held the assessee

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