ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. ASHAPURA RUBBER UDYOG,, NASHIK

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section 133(6) of the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the bogus purchases. IV. The next instance is the case of goods which have been admittedly sold by the hawala dealer and has been received by the assessee, who in turn had maintained quantitative details and also evidence of its movement i.e. transportation

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

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

M/S. MARCURUS WATER TREATMENT INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1263/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

section 133(6) of the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the assessee failing to file any documentary evidence of delivery of goods, addition is to be upheld in the hands of assessee on account of such bogus purchases. IV. The next instance is the case of goods which have been admittedly sold

M/S. ANIKET TRADING COMPANY,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.467/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

section 133(6) of the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the assessee failing to file any documentary evidence of delivery of goods, addition is to be upheld in the hands of assessee on account of such bogus purchases. IV. The next instance is the case of goods which have been admittedly sold

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

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

41,075/- to the income originally determined u/s.143(3) of the Act by rejecting the assessee’s contention for reduction in the amount of income offered in the return u/s.153A on account of such a mistaken notion. 3. The assessee approached the ld. CIT(A) and furnished the relevant documents in support of the genuineness of purchases. It was contended

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

41,075/- to the income originally determined u/s.143(3) of the Act by rejecting the assessee’s contention for reduction in the amount of income offered in the return u/s.153A on account of such a mistaken notion. 3. The assessee approached the ld. CIT(A) and furnished the relevant documents in support of the genuineness of purchases. It was contended

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

41,075/- to the income originally determined u/s.143(3) of the Act by rejecting the assessee’s contention for reduction in the amount of income offered in the return u/s.153A on account of such a mistaken notion. 3. The assessee approached the ld. CIT(A) and furnished the relevant documents in support of the genuineness of purchases. It was contended

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

41,075/- to the income originally determined u/s.143(3) of the Act by rejecting the assessee’s contention for reduction in the amount of income offered in the return u/s.153A on account of such a mistaken notion. 3. The assessee approached the ld. CIT(A) and furnished the relevant documents in support of the genuineness of purchases. It was contended

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

41,075/- to the income originally determined u/s.143(3) of the Act by rejecting the assessee’s contention for reduction in the amount of income offered in the return u/s.153A on account of such a mistaken notion. 3. The assessee approached the ld. CIT(A) and furnished the relevant documents in support of the genuineness of purchases. It was contended

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

41,075/- to the income originally determined u/s.143(3) of the Act by rejecting the assessee’s contention for reduction in the amount of income offered in the return u/s.153A on account of such a mistaken notion. 3. The assessee approached the ld. CIT(A) and furnished the relevant documents in support of the genuineness of purchases. It was contended

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

41,075/- to the income originally determined u/s.143(3) of the Act by rejecting the assessee’s contention for reduction in the amount of income offered in the return u/s.153A on account of such a mistaken notion. 3. The assessee approached the ld. CIT(A) and furnished the relevant documents in support of the genuineness of purchases. It was contended

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

41,075/- to the income originally determined u/s.143(3) of the Act by rejecting the assessee’s contention for reduction in the amount of income offered in the return u/s.153A on account of such a mistaken notion. 3. The assessee approached the ld. CIT(A) and furnished the relevant documents in support of the genuineness of purchases. It was contended

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

41,075/- to the income originally determined u/s.143(3) of the Act by rejecting the assessee’s contention for reduction in the amount of income offered in the return u/s.153A on account of such a mistaken notion. 3. The assessee approached the ld. CIT(A) and furnished the relevant documents in support of the genuineness of purchases. It was contended

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

41,075/- to the income originally determined u/s.143(3) of the Act by rejecting the assessee’s contention for reduction in the amount of income offered in the return u/s.153A on account of such a mistaken notion. 3. The assessee approached the ld. CIT(A) and furnished the relevant documents in support of the genuineness of purchases. It was contended

YOGESH GOSAVI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2305/Pun/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year : 2010-11

bogus purchases from alleged HAWALA parties amounting to Rs. 1.19 CR and finally, retaining addition of Rs. 1.06 CR under section 41

SHREYA JAYANT JOSHI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.47 & 48/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

section 133(6) of the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the assessee failing to file any documentary evidence of delivery of goods, addition is to be upheld in the hands of assessee on account of such bogus purchases. IV. The next instance is the case of goods which have been admittedly sold

SHREYA JAYANT JOSHI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.47 & 48/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

section 133(6) of the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the assessee failing to file any documentary evidence of delivery of goods, addition is to be upheld in the hands of assessee on account of such bogus purchases. IV. The next instance is the case of goods which have been admittedly sold