M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raising an interference to that effect. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shah & Bros Vs CIT (37 ITR 271] held that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. Since the transaction from the assessee is genuine no addition or disallowance can be made on this account.” 5

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. RATHI STEEL AND METAL PVT. LTD, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Dcit, Aurangabad Rathi Steel & Metal Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.F12, Addl Midc Area, Phase-Ii, Vs. Jalna – 431203 Pan : Aabcr5546A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anand Partani Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - Cit Date Of Hearing : 01-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

bogus purchases from various entities in respect of the assessee company. In the appraisal report names of 19 parties were mentioned. Notices u/s 133(6) of the Act were issued to these parties and the purchases were confirmed by the parties except OM Traders, Sunny Traders and Krypton Scrap Works Pvt. Ltd. It was further mentioned that information was also

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

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

43,018/- for the assessment year 2010-11 and (iii) Rs.1,05,84,505/- for the assessment year 2011-12. The Assessing Officer made the entire amounts as addition on account of bogus purchases and relied on the statement obtained u/s 131 of the Act. Assessee offered the said purchases as bogus and offered the same as additional income. Assessee

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

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

43,018/- for the assessment year 2010-11 and (iii) Rs.1,05,84,505/- for the assessment year 2011-12. The Assessing Officer made the entire amounts as addition on account of bogus purchases and relied on the statement obtained u/s 131 of the Act. Assessee offered the said purchases as bogus and offered the same as additional income. Assessee

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

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

43,018/- for the assessment year 2010-11 and (iii) Rs.1,05,84,505/- for the assessment year 2011-12. The Assessing Officer made the entire amounts as addition on account of bogus purchases and relied on the statement obtained u/s 131 of the Act. Assessee offered the said purchases as bogus and offered the same as additional income. Assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. COOPERATION METALS, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

43,816) being unproved purchases from the vendors declared as hawala parties. 5. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 18% of the said bogus purchases by observing as under: ITA Nos.2319 & 2271/PUN/2024 & Ors 6. Aggrieved with part relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee as well

CO-OPERATION METALS,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(3), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

43,816) being unproved purchases from the vendors declared as hawala parties. 5. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 18% of the said bogus purchases by observing as under: ITA Nos.2319 & 2271/PUN/2024 & Ors 6. Aggrieved with part relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee as well

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. COOPERATION METALS, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

43,816) being unproved purchases from the vendors declared as hawala parties. 5. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 18% of the said bogus purchases by observing as under: ITA Nos.2319 & 2271/PUN/2024 & Ors 6. Aggrieved with part relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee as well

CO-OPERATION METALS,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(3), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

43,816) being unproved purchases from the vendors declared as hawala parties. 5. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 18% of the said bogus purchases by observing as under: ITA Nos.2319 & 2271/PUN/2024 & Ors 6. Aggrieved with part relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee as well

CO-OPERATION METALS,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(3), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

43,816) being unproved purchases from the vendors declared as hawala parties. 5. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 18% of the said bogus purchases by observing as under: ITA Nos.2319 & 2271/PUN/2024 & Ors 6. Aggrieved with part relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee as well

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. COOPERATION METALS, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

43,816) being unproved purchases from the vendors declared as hawala parties. 5. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 18% of the said bogus purchases by observing as under: ITA Nos.2319 & 2271/PUN/2024 & Ors 6. Aggrieved with part relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee as well

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. BHARAT IRON SYNDICATE,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

43,00,279/- 4 Ridhi Sidhi Corporation 5,38,376/- 5 Tulsiani Trading Pvt. Ltd. 19,15,724/- 6 Rushabh Enterprises 67,94,890/- 7 Rohit Enterprises 23,26,628/- 8 Niddhish Impex Pvt. Ltd. 20,57,760/- Total purchases:- 2,29,12,188/- 7. Having held that the alleged purchases were bogus in nature and only hawala entries were

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

section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The income of the assessee from the business is therefore estimated based on the information available on record. Since the cash sales have not been substantiated and on the basis of information of bogus purchases made from M/s Rishab Trading Company the sales of the assessee from proprietary concern M/s Pooja

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

43. Ground of appeal nos.4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 challenges the decision of the ld. CIT(A) in holding that the long term capital loss arising on sale of shares of BSPL held by the assessee company is allowable as deduction and allow to be carried forward the said loss for set off C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 against profits

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

43. Ground of appeal nos.4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 challenges the decision of the ld. CIT(A) in holding that the long term capital loss arising on sale of shares of BSPL held by the assessee company is allowable as deduction and allow to be carried forward the said loss for set off C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 against profits

CONSEP ENGINEERING PVT.LTD,,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3,, PANVEL

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

43,200/- as per the discussion given in para 4.2 of the assessment order. Aggrieved with the said decision of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) confirmed the same. 4. Aggrieved with the said decision of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal with the above extracted

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

5. Aggrieved Revenue is now in appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee has also filed Cross Objection in support of the finding of ld.CIT(A). 6. Ld. DR referring to the written submissions stated that no transportation bills have been filed by the assessee which could demonstrate that the goods have reached to the assessee’s premises. He further stated that

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"

Bogus purchases’. 8. in confirming disallowance of rent paid of Rs.31,44,000/- for bungalow located at 70, Koregaon Park, Pune taken on lease (belonging to M/s. Poonawalla Finvest & Agro Pvt. Ltd., ZSP Group Company) for office of Director of appellant company and depreciation of Rs.12,97,701/- on the assets placed there at 9. a. not considering the ‘cost