M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

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

section (3) of section 143 for any\nprevious year; or\nc) Such case has been selected in accordance with the risk\nmanagement strategy, formulated by the Board from time to\ntime, for any previous year;\nThe Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall—\ni.\ncall for such documents or information from the trust\nor institution, or make such inquiry as he thinks

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

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

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

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

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

1. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of AO disallowing purchases to the tune of Rs.20,27,447/- from three parties listed as hawala parties in the list of Sales Tax Department by treating the same as bogus. The party-wise details of alleged bogus purchases are as follows : Krishna Steel Industries – Rs.9,74,611/- Prime Steel

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

section 41(1) of the ITA, 1961. Learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating apparent conflict in the said two situations. 2 Mr. Yogesh Gosavi 2. Learned CIT(A) and the learned AD Ward 1(2), Nashik erred in law and on facts in treating the purchases of Rs. 1.06 CR as bogus

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

1) All statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence. (2) All documents produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary evidence.’ When we read sub-section (4) of section 132 in juxtaposition to section

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

1) All statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence. (2) All documents produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary evidence.’ When we read sub-section (4) of section 132 in juxtaposition to section

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

1) All statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence. (2) All documents produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary evidence.’ When we read sub-section (4) of section 132 in juxtaposition to section

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

1) All statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence. (2) All documents produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary evidence.’ When we read sub-section (4) of section 132 in juxtaposition to section

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

1) All statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence. (2) All documents produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary evidence.’ When we read sub-section (4) of section 132 in juxtaposition to section

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

1) All statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence. (2) All documents produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary evidence.’ When we read sub-section (4) of section 132 in juxtaposition to section

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

1) All statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence. (2) All documents produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary evidence.’ When we read sub-section (4) of section 132 in juxtaposition to section

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

1) All statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence. (2) All documents produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary evidence.’ When we read sub-section (4) of section 132 in juxtaposition to section

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

1) All statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence. (2) All documents produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary evidence.’ When we read sub-section (4) of section 132 in juxtaposition to section

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

1) All statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence. (2) All documents produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary evidence.’ When we read sub-section (4) of section 132 in juxtaposition to section