M/S. SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1778 To 1782/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa(Bk), Pune – 411 048. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaccs3670F

section 143(2) after filing the return of income which had rendered the Assessment Order bad in law liable to be set aside. 3. The CIT(A) erred in not deleting the disallowance of Rs.20,31,158/- out of purchases though the purchases were fully verifiable and the payments were made through bank. 4. Without prejudice to Ground

M/S. SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1778 To 1782/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa(Bk), Pune – 411 048. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaccs3670F

section 143(2) after filing the return of income which had rendered the Assessment Order bad in law liable to be set aside. 3. The CIT(A) erred in not deleting the disallowance of Rs.20,31,158/- out of purchases though the purchases were fully verifiable and the payments were made through bank. 4. Without prejudice to Ground

M/S. SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1778 To 1782/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa(Bk), Pune – 411 048. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaccs3670F

section 143(2) after filing the return of income which had rendered the Assessment Order bad in law liable to be set aside. 3. The CIT(A) erred in not deleting the disallowance of Rs.20,31,158/- out of purchases though the purchases were fully verifiable and the payments were made through bank. 4. Without prejudice to Ground

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. SURYACHANDRA LALMANI DUBEY, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

bogus purchases to the tune of Rs. 36,56,250/- and suppressed the profit for the year under consideration. Based on this finding that AO has formed belief that income to the tune of Rs. 36,56,250/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section

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"

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 18 Serum Institute of India Ltd., A.Yrs. 2011-12 and 2012-13 goods, addition is to be upheld in the hands of assessee on account of such bogus purchases. IV. The next

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"

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 18 Serum Institute of India Ltd., A.Yrs. 2011-12 and 2012-13 goods, addition is to be upheld in the hands of assessee on account of such bogus purchases. IV. The next

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"

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 18 Serum Institute of India Ltd., A.Yrs. 2011-12 and 2012-13 goods, addition is to be upheld in the hands of assessee on account of such bogus purchases. IV. The next

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"

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 18 Serum Institute of India Ltd., A.Yrs. 2011-12 and 2012-13 goods, addition is to be upheld in the hands of assessee on account of such bogus purchases. IV. The next

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, , NASHIK vs. M/S. KIRTI FOODS LTD,, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1684/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Assistant M/S.Kirti Foods Ltd, Commissioner Of Income Vs 79-C, Market Yard, Tax, Circle-2, Nahik. Latur – 413512. Pan: Aabck 5376 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 07/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-12, Pune For The A.Y.2009-10 Dated 30.08.2019. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Regular Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Finalized Declaring Total Income At Rs.2,90,85,170/-. The Appellant Filed Appeal Before The Ld.Cit(A) & Further Itat Where It Got Partial Relief. The Assessing Officer Received Information From The Sales Tax Department Regarding Parties Who Provided Only Bills Without Actual Delivery Of Goods, There Were Certain Parties Who Provided Such Bills To The Assessee

section 147 of the Act assessing the total income at Rs.2,69,56,580/- after making the addition of Rs.2,15,091/- for alleged hawala transactions. The Assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax(A). The Commissioner of Income Tax(A) held that only the gross profit on such purchases at 12.5% should be added. Accordingly

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. KALA GENSET PVT.LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2653 & 2654/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2006-07 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

section 10A and 10B have been amended by the Finance Act, 2000 whereby definition of ‘manufacturing’, which included any process or assembling has been deleted w.e.f. 01-04-2001. 5. On the other hand, Shri Nikhil Patkak appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee claimed deduction u/s.80IB(5) for the first time in the assessment year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. KALA GENSET PVT.LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2653 & 2654/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2006-07 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

section 10A and 10B have been amended by the Finance Act, 2000 whereby definition of ‘manufacturing’, which included any process or assembling has been deleted w.e.f. 01-04-2001. 5. On the other hand, Shri Nikhil Patkak appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee claimed deduction u/s.80IB(5) for the first time in the assessment year

TULSI EXTRUSIONS LTD.,,JALGAON vs. JOINT COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1434/Pun/2014 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Tulsi Extrusions Ltd. N-99 & 100, Midc Area, Ajantha Road, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon, Pin-425 003 Pan : Aaact8441P .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Jalgaon. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

56 of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)‟s order Para 12.2 and submitted that the assessee neither proved the said purchases before the Assessing Officer nor adduced any further evidences during the Appellate proceedings in support of the purchases. The assessee also failed to bring any sort of evidence which proves beyond doubt that the assessee had purchased the said machinery

SMT. SHINGI KALPANA RAKHABCHAND,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2474/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Smt. Shingi Kalpana Rakhabchand, Nutan Industrial Corporation, P.O. Box – 57, Kopargaon, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ahmednagar …. Pan: Aeyps6182D Vs.

section 147 of the Act and second issue raised is against addition made on account of alleged bogus purchases of ₹ 7,55,300/-. 4. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the Assessing Officer had received information from the Sales Tax Department that the assessee was the recipient from hawala transaction parties of ₹ 7,55,300/-. The assessee during

PRO-ARC WELDINGS & CUTTING SYSTEMS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 10,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2365/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Pro-Arc Welding & Cutting Systems Pvt. Ltd., Gat No.246, Chimbali, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Khed, Pune – 412501 …. Pan: Aaecp1289M Vs.

purchases of ₹ 3,35,516/- were made from M/s. Asian Metal Industries in the months of July, August, September, 2008 and the amount was paid in the month of July, 2011. The CIT(A) was of the view that since it was an accommodation entry availed by the assessee, hence the supplier was not seeking payment of the said amount

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

purchased by respondent on the floor of\nStock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries were taken,\ncontract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor of\nStock Exchange. The ITAT therefore, in our view, rightly concluded that\nthere was no merit in the appeal.\"\n\nThe facts of the case at hand are similar

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

purchased by respondent on the floor of\nStock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries were taken,\ncontract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor of\nStock Exchange. The ITAT therefore, in our view, rightly concluded that\nthere was no merit in the appeal.\"\nThe facts of the case at hand are similar

M/S. KASTURI RASHI DEVELOPERS,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(3), , PUNE

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal

56 and 57 of the paper book. Page 57 is a copy of the Profit and loss account, which shows turnover of Rs.127.87 crore and purchase of Rs.127.75 crore, with the net profit at Rs.9,37,568/-. The `Other income’ shown in the Profit and loss account as per Schedule 7 is Rs.32,52,241/-. If the amount of `Other

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

purchased by respondent on the floor of\nStock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries were taken,\ncontract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor of\nStock Exchange. The ITAT therefore, in our view, rightly concluded that\nthere was no merit in the appeal.\"\n\nThe facts of the case at hand are similar