RAHUL CABLES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1168 To 1170/Pun/2017 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 वष"

bogus purchases. The total of such purchases works out to Rs.3,47,78,546/- for the A.Y. 2009-10. As per procedure laid down in the provisions of section

RAHUL CABLES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1168 To 1170/Pun/2017 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 वष"

bogus purchases. The total of such purchases works out to Rs.3,47,78,546/- for the A.Y. 2009-10. As per procedure laid down in the provisions of section

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SATARA vs. KAY BOUVET ENGINEERING LIMITED, SATARA

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

546 (Bombay)] (iv) Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd [2020] 117 taxmann.com 625 (Bombay) (v) Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jagdish Thakkar [2022] 145 taxmann.com 414 (Bombay) (vi) Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai v. Chawla Interbild Construction Co. (P.) Ltd [2019] 104 taxmann.com 402 (Bombay) (vii) Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 13 vs Vaman

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

546. 4. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in assessing the gross profit margin (GPM) of the appellant at 18% on alleged HAWALA purchases instead of a reasonable lower plausible GPM. Appellant contends that, in business of trading of goods and assuming, such huge 18% GPM on alleged HAWALA Purchases is abnormal. 5. Appellant craves

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

546. 4. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in assessing the gross profit margin (GPM) of the appellant at 18% on alleged HAWALA purchases instead of a reasonable lower plausible GPM. Appellant contends that, in business of trading of goods and assuming, such huge 18% GPM on alleged HAWALA Purchases is abnormal. 5. Appellant craves

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

546. 4. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in assessing the gross profit margin (GPM) of the appellant at 18% on alleged HAWALA purchases instead of a reasonable lower plausible GPM. Appellant contends that, in business of trading of goods and assuming, such huge 18% GPM on alleged HAWALA Purchases is abnormal. 5. Appellant craves

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

546. 4. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in assessing the gross profit margin (GPM) of the appellant at 18% on alleged HAWALA purchases instead of a reasonable lower plausible GPM. Appellant contends that, in business of trading of goods and assuming, such huge 18% GPM on alleged HAWALA Purchases is abnormal. 5. Appellant craves

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

546. 4. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in assessing the gross profit margin (GPM) of the appellant at 18% on alleged HAWALA purchases instead of a reasonable lower plausible GPM. Appellant contends that, in business of trading of goods and assuming, such huge 18% GPM on alleged HAWALA Purchases is abnormal. 5. Appellant craves

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

546. 4. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in assessing the gross profit margin (GPM) of the appellant at 18% on alleged HAWALA purchases instead of a reasonable lower plausible GPM. Appellant contends that, in business of trading of goods and assuming, such huge 18% GPM on alleged HAWALA Purchases is abnormal. 5. Appellant craves

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

purchased and sold scripts at a price which are very less as compared to the market price on that particular day. During the FY 2014-15, M/s Kay Power and Paper Ltd. has made the transactions and booked the profit of Rs. 2,67,66,250/-. During the F.Y 2014-15, M/s Kay Power and Paper Ltd has made such

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

purchased and sold scripts at a price which are very less as compared to the market price on that particular day. During the FY 2014-15, M/s Kay Power and Paper Ltd. has made the transactions and booked the profit of Rs. 2,67,66,250/-. During the F.Y 2014-15, M/s Kay Power and Paper Ltd has made such