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

section 132(4), which delineates that the statement made by the assessee may or may not be used as evidence in the assessment proceedings. The nitty gritty of the matter is that though a statement made u/s 132(4) carries immense weight and works as an evidence, but the same is not conclusive in so far as the legal assertions

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

section 132(4), which delineates that the statement made by the assessee may or may not be used as evidence in the assessment proceedings. The nitty gritty of the matter is that though a statement made u/s 132(4) carries immense weight and works as an evidence, but the same is not conclusive in so far as the legal assertions

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

section 132(4), which delineates that the statement made by the assessee may or may not be used as evidence in the assessment proceedings. The nitty gritty of the matter is that though a statement made u/s 132(4) carries immense weight and works as an evidence, but the same is not conclusive in so far as the legal assertions

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

section 132(4), which delineates that the statement made by the assessee may or may not be used as evidence in the assessment proceedings. The nitty gritty of the matter is that though a statement made u/s 132(4) carries immense weight and works as an evidence, but the same is not conclusive in so far as the legal assertions

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

section 132(4), which delineates that the statement made by the assessee may or may not be used as evidence in the assessment proceedings. The nitty gritty of the matter is that though a statement made u/s 132(4) carries immense weight and works as an evidence, but the same is not conclusive in so far as the legal assertions

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

section 132(4), which delineates that the statement made by the assessee may or may not be used as evidence in the assessment proceedings. The nitty gritty of the matter is that though a statement made u/s 132(4) carries immense weight and works as an evidence, but the same is not conclusive in so far as the legal assertions

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

section 132(4), which delineates that the statement made by the assessee may or may not be used as evidence in the assessment proceedings. The nitty gritty of the matter is that though a statement made u/s 132(4) carries immense weight and works as an evidence, but the same is not conclusive in so far as the legal assertions

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

section 132(4), which delineates that the statement made by the assessee may or may not be used as evidence in the assessment proceedings. The nitty gritty of the matter is that though a statement made u/s 132(4) carries immense weight and works as an evidence, but the same is not conclusive in so far as the legal assertions

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

section 132(4), which delineates that the statement made by the assessee may or may not be used as evidence in the assessment proceedings. The nitty gritty of the matter is that though a statement made u/s 132(4) carries immense weight and works as an evidence, but the same is not conclusive in so far as the legal assertions

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

section 132(4), which delineates that the statement made by the assessee may or may not be used as evidence in the assessment proceedings. The nitty gritty of the matter is that though a statement made u/s 132(4) carries immense weight and works as an evidence, but the same is not conclusive in so far as the legal assertions

VENKY'S (INDIA) LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

69,68,524/- for the assessment year 2010-11 and the addition of Rs.10,38,000/- (20% of Rs.51,89,957/-) instead of Rs.51,89,957/- for the assessment year 2011-12 respectively and partly allowed the appeals of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved with the said decision of the CIT(A), the assessee as well as the Revenue

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. VENKY'S INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

69,68,524/- for the assessment year 2010-11 and the addition of Rs.10,38,000/- (20% of Rs.51,89,957/-) instead of Rs.51,89,957/- for the assessment year 2011-12 respectively and partly allowed the appeals of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved with the said decision of the CIT(A), the assessee as well as the Revenue

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. VENKY'S INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

69,68,524/- for the assessment year 2010-11 and the addition of Rs.10,38,000/- (20% of Rs.51,89,957/-) instead of Rs.51,89,957/- for the assessment year 2011-12 respectively and partly allowed the appeals of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved with the said decision of the CIT(A), the assessee as well as the Revenue

VENKY'S (INDIA) LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

69,68,524/- for the assessment year 2010-11 and the addition of Rs.10,38,000/- (20% of Rs.51,89,957/-) instead of Rs.51,89,957/- for the assessment year 2011-12 respectively and partly allowed the appeals of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved with the said decision of the CIT(A), the assessee as well as the Revenue

M/S. THERMO ENGINEERS PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

69,568/- for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. This is the case where the assessee claimed the purchasing from suppliers, whose name appeared in the Website of the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra Government. In the assessment, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.8,35,269/- and Rs.86,61,812/- for the assessment years

M/S. THERMO ENGINEERS PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

69,568/- for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. This is the case where the assessee claimed the purchasing from suppliers, whose name appeared in the Website of the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra Government. In the assessment, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.8,35,269/- and Rs.86,61,812/- for the assessment years

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

69-C come into picture along with other aspects u/s 40A(3) etc. Thus, in the fitness of things, purchases as such are being disallowed in this case is completely justified. 6.5. Thus, in the case under hands, an addition on account of bogus purchases amounting to Rs.87,64,74,079/-is being made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, SOLAPUR vs. M/S. BEEKAY ENTERPRISES,, SOLAPUR

In the result, the legal ground taken in the assessee’s cross objection which goes to the root of the matter is allowed and the ground on merits therefore, becomes academic in nature

69,21,245/- being 20% of alleged bogus purchases from Hawala dealers of Rs. 3,46,06,232/- on account to profit out of alleged bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 3,46,06,232/-. 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-7, Pune is erred in restricting