DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1,, JALGAON vs. M/S. MAHARASHTRA SOLVENT EXTRACTION PVT. LTD.,, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1434/Pun/2013 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year : 2010-11

purchase of Soya seeds on behalf of the assessee. The total commission paid to the said HUF was Rs. 8,80,047/-. The first issue which is raised against the assessee is that it had not proved services rendered by the HUF. However, we find that similar services were availed by the assessee in earlier years and no disallowance

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

40A(3) etc. Thus, in the fitness of things, purchases as such are being disallowed in this case is completely justified. 6.5. Thus, in the case under hands, an addition on account of 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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. H.C. SARASWAT TOBACCO CO. PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1328/Pun/2014 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 वष"

purchases, bogus commission and also disallowances on account of excessive payments u/s.40A(2)(b) of the Act. The assessed income is determined at Rs.1,53,56,630/-. During the First Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) deleted certain additions and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee on the issue of addition

SHOUKAT AHAMED MAKHUBHAI,,RATNAGIRI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

purchases made in cash payment which exceeds Rs.20,000/- aggregated to Rs.5,82,703/-. He accordingly by invoking the provisions of Sec.40A(3) of the Act disallowed the payments aggregating to Rs.5,82,703/-. 5. AO also noticed that assessee had made payment towards labour charges to various parties in cash and the aggregate of such payment was Rs.16

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

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 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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. KALA GENSET PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.346/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-9, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pune. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Kala Genset Pvt. Ltd., 392/1, Vill- Mahalunge, Tal. Khed, Pune-410501. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aaack6784C Revenue By : Shri N. Ashok Babu Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-6, Pune Dated 31.10.2016 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under :- “1. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Excess Remuneration Paid To The Directors Of The Company?” 2. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Was Justified In Allowing The Assessee’S Claim Of Rs. 55,20,630/- Claimed As Deduction U/S 80Ib(5)(I) Of The I.T. Act, 1961, When The Assessee Is Not Involved In Manufacturing Or Producing Activity But Is Only Carrying Out The Activity Of Assembling At Its Silassa Unit?”

purchases of Rs.1,37,66,973/- from bogus suppliers treated as advance made to unknown debtors not for business purpose?” 3. The ground-wise adjudication is given in the following paragraphs of the order. Referring to ground no.1 i.e. excess remuneration paid to the 4. Directors of the company, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order

ITO, WARD-1(1), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR vs. MS. KSHIRSAGAR FABRICS, SOLAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

b) there are no split payments had been verified while completing the assessment proceedings. However, the AO, then proceeded to reopen the assessment by issuing notice u/s. 148 on 25/03/2014 on the following reasons.- "During the financial year relevant to the A. Y. 2009-10, the assessee had made payment to the 15 related parties in cash totaling

DILIP BABURAO DALVI,,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 (1),, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Dilip Baburao Dalvi Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), 33, Shivaji Housing Society, Kolhapur 12Th Lane Rajarampuri, Kolhapur – 416008 Pan : Abepd8027H Appellant Respondent

purchase of Rs.8,34,600, against which, the AO had recorded reasons as bogus transactions. The AO made the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act for the equal amount. The ld. CIT(A) affirmed the addition. 4. We have heard rival submissions through Virtual Court and gone through the relevant material on record. The reasons recorded

RAJENDRA MULCHAND GOTHI,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

B-102/202, Acropolis Apartment, Thatte Nagar, College Road, Nashik – 422005 PAN : AAUPG4983E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 1, Nashik ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue by : Shri S.P. Walimbe सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 09-01-2020 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 10-01-2020 आदेश / ORDER PER ANIL

SHREE SANTOSHIMATA MAJOOR SAHAKARI SANSTHA,PEN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2019/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shree Santoshimata Majoor Vs. Ito, Ward-4, Panvel. Sahakari Sanstha, 203, Gr. Floor, Sonkhar, Pen, Raigad- 402107. Pan : Avhpm2201K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sunil R. Talreja Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of This Appeal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit. We Are Satisfied With The Explanation Of The Assessee That He Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within Prescribed Time Limit. Ld. Dr Raised No Serious

bogus. It was also submitted by Ld. AR that the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(vi) was also rightly claimed by the assessee since the contract work were executed with the help of members of the assessee cooperative society, who also happens to be the labours. Accordingly, it was prayed by Ld. AR that deduction u/s 80P(2

RAMESH HARIBHAU GAWALI,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

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

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

40A(3) of the Act since these payments were made by the assessee by bearer cheques. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who granted partial relief to the assessee by holding as under : “4.3 The contentions raised by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant are carefully examined in the light of the facts

SANGEETA BASAVRAJ MANGRULE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

B. Mangrule A,Y. 2015-16 cash, for which there is no evidence and neither has the broker been shown to accept cash in the ordinary course of his business. Why for the persons trading therein, this would be an impediment to claim the cost of shares traded in, in view of the non obstante clause of section 40A