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

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

section 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not verified all the relevant issues to determine the correct taxable income and therefore the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We find in the set aside proceedings the Assessing Officer, rejecting the various explanations given

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

section 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not verified all the relevant issues to determine the correct taxable income and therefore the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We find in the set aside proceedings the Assessing Officer, rejecting the various explanations given

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

section 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not verified all the relevant issues to determine the correct taxable income and therefore the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We find in the set aside proceedings the Assessing Officer, rejecting the various explanations given

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

section 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not verified all the relevant issues to determine the correct taxable income and therefore the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We find in the set aside proceedings the Assessing Officer, rejecting the various explanations given

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

section 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not verified all the relevant issues to determine the correct taxable income and therefore the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We find in the set aside proceedings the Assessing Officer, rejecting the various explanations given

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

section 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not verified all the relevant issues to determine the correct taxable income and therefore the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We find in the set aside proceedings the Assessing Officer, rejecting the various explanations given

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

bogus purchase entries from M/s. Rishabh Trading Company, which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC had admitted therefore, without appreciating the facts properly the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC was not justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC be reversed and that of the Assessing

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

44 of the Act read with First Schedule thereto, in our opinion the Assessing Officer for the applicable assessment year did not have power to add back the profit of Rs.245.09 crores arising out of sale of investments to the total income of the assessee.” 16. Before us, the ld. D.R also fairly accepted that this issue has been consistently

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,, PUNE

44 of the Act read with First Schedule thereto, in our opinion the Assessing Officer for the applicable assessment year did not have power to add back the profit of Rs.245.09 crores arising out of sale of investments to the total income of the assessee.” 16. Before us, the ld. D.R also fairly accepted that this issue has been consistently

M/S. TIRUPATI SALES,,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

44,000/- 4. Deep Enterprises 6,86,577/- 5. Shivam Trading 28,72,824/- 6. Nidhesh Impex P. Ltd. 57,42,807/- Total Rs. 1,61,84,077/- 5. The assessee was asked to explain the same by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act for reopening of the assessment. As the assessee did not reply to the said

M/S. TIRUPATI SALES,,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

44,000/- 4. Deep Enterprises 6,86,577/- 5. Shivam Trading 28,72,824/- 6. Nidhesh Impex P. Ltd. 57,42,807/- Total Rs. 1,61,84,077/- 5. The assessee was asked to explain the same by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act for reopening of the assessment. As the assessee did not reply to the said

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

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

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"

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

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"

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. PAWAR PATKAR CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,, NASHIK

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

44,72,400/-. On the basis of information received from Sales Tax Department, the assessee’s case was reopened u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act. During the impugned assessment year, assessee reflected the purchases from three suppliers namely, (1) M/s. Varun Enterprises (2) M/s. Raj Traders and 2 M/s. Pawar Patkar Construction Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Payal Enterprise amounting to Rs.2

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SOMNATH VAIJANATH SAKRE,, AURANGABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2896/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

44 of the Act. Ld. AR also mentioned that this issue was the subject matter before the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2003-04 (ITA ITA No.26/PUN/2017 and CO No.55/PUN/2018 No.1447/PN/2007 & CO No.52/PN/2007, dated 31-08-2009 where one of us is a party-Accountant Member) and the order was originally passed in the year 2009 in favour of the assessee