PRAMOD SHANKARRAO SALUNKHE,,KOLHAPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -2,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 974/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Pramod Shankarrao Salunkhe Flat No.7, Takshak Apartment, E Ward, Nagala Park, Kolhapur-416 003 Pan : Alnps2900F .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Kolhapur. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri J.P Chandrakar

bogus purchases goes against the principle of Section 68 and 69C of the I.T Act, 1961”. The said Gujarat High

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

bogus purchases by invoking the provisions of section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee in the present

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. METAROLLS ISPAT PVT. LTD., JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

bogus / untested purchases, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that adoption of the same percentage of profit i.e. 5% on such unaccounted sale of Rs.17,42,000/- should be added to the total income of the assessee which in the instant case comes to Rs.87,100/-. When the documents found containing certain transactions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, AURANGABAD vs. METAROLLS ISPAT PVT. LTD, JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

sections": [ "143(1)", "143(2)", "142(1)", "132", "133(6)", "131", "147", "143(3)", "69A", "271AAC(1)", "28", "69", "69C" ], "issues": "Whether additions made by the AO on account of bogus purchases

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

section 69C of the Act which was not considered by the appellate authority. However, in the case of the assessee the addition for non-genuine purchases was not made u/s 69C of the Act. The purchases were added to the income from business and profession of the assessee company. He further submitted that the facts of the instant case

ABDUL REHMAN ABDUL RAUF CHOUDHARY,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 9(1),, PUNE

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

69C of the Act only on the basis of a statement given by a non-existing person without appreciating the evidences filed by the appellant. 2. CIT(A) erred in not relying upon the case of CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. of reported in [2013] 260 Taxman 171 (Bom HC) wherein the Hon’ble High Court deleted

ABDUL REHMAN ABDUL RAUF CHOUDHARY,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 9(1),, PUNE

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

69C of the Act only on the basis of a statement given by a non-existing person without appreciating the evidences filed by the appellant. 2. CIT(A) erred in not relying upon the case of CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. of reported in [2013] 260 Taxman 171 (Bom HC) wherein the Hon’ble High Court deleted

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. ANIL JAIRAM GOEL, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases rather than considering only the profit margin on the addition made. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the profit margin to 12.5% by going against the principles of section 68 and 69C

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. ANIL JAIRAM GOEL, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases rather than considering only the profit margin on the addition made. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the profit margin to 12.5% by going against the principles of section 68 and 69C

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3 , PUNE vs. SHRI. PRITAM SUBHASH MAHALE, PUNE

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.183/Pun/2020 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-2010 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-3, Pune. . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Pritam S Mahale F.No-01, Nihar Apartment, Mayur Colony, Kothrud, Pune-29. . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 03/10/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Revenue Is Assailed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 20/11/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which Emanated Out Of The Assessment Order Dt. 09/03/2015 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act, By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Circle-3, Pune [For Short “Ao”] For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Grounds As Raised In The Memorandum Are;

purchases amounting to Rs.2,92,93,2887- and taxing only 25% of these bogus claim goes against the principles of Sections 68 and 69C

M/S. SHIVAM CONSTRUCTION CO,,PANVEL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

Appeals are dismissed, accordingly

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.233 & 234/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12

purchases amounting to Rs. 2,92,93,288/- and taxing only 25 % of these bogus claim goes against the principles of Sections 68 and 69C

M/S. SHIVAM CONSTRUCTION CO,,PANVEL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

Appeals are dismissed, accordingly

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.233 & 234/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12

purchases amounting to Rs. 2,92,93,288/- and taxing only 25 % of these bogus claim goes against the principles of Sections 68 and 69C

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

purchases have been found to be bogus by the Assessing Officer. Restricting the disallowance to certain extent is against the principle of section 68 & 69C

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

purchases as bogus and thereafter to make addition under section 69C of the Act. Tribunal has also held that if the Assessing

INCOME TAX OFFICER,, JALNA vs. M/S. GOVINDAM METAL & ALLOYS PVT. LTD,, JALNA

In the result, appeal of the assesse in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 40/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Jalna. .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Govindam Metal & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.B-15, Addl. Midc Area, Jalna- 431 203. Pan : Aacct9215F ………प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 81/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Govindam Metal & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. C/O. Sandeep Narendra Agarwal, Bharat Nagar, Near Shivaji Statue, Jalna-431 203. Pan : Aacct9215F .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Jalna. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

section 40A(3) and 69C of the IT Act,1961 from some other parties and obtained only the bills from the hawala dealers without movement of goods including A.Y.2009-10 circumstantial evidences in the form of transportation, weightment slips and debiting the expenses into the cash book for such expenses. 3. The order of the AO be restored and that

M/S. GOVINDAM METAL & ALLOYS P.LTD,,JALNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, JALNA

In the result, appeal of the assesse in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 40/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Jalna. .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Govindam Metal & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.B-15, Addl. Midc Area, Jalna- 431 203. Pan : Aacct9215F ………प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 81/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Govindam Metal & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. C/O. Sandeep Narendra Agarwal, Bharat Nagar, Near Shivaji Statue, Jalna-431 203. Pan : Aacct9215F .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Jalna. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

section 40A(3) and 69C of the IT Act,1961 from some other parties and obtained only the bills from the hawala dealers without movement of goods including A.Y.2009-10 circumstantial evidences in the form of transportation, weightment slips and debiting the expenses into the cash book for such expenses. 3. The order of the AO be restored and that

CHANDAN STORES,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 9(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

section 69C of Income Tax Act.” 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noticed that ADIT (Inv.,), Kolhapur had examined the bank account of the Sangli based hawala operators Shri Suresh Parekh and Shri Sushant Ladda. It was noted by him that the hawala operator group had utilized various concerns standing in their name for providing accommodation entries. Statement

SHIV SHRADDHA DEVELOPER,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -3 KALYAN , KALYAN

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.944/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2010-11

purchases from the said parties were bogus and made addition as unexplained expenditure invoking the provisions of section 69C of the Act. 3. On appeal

M/S. KUVAWALA DRILL EQUIP,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, HQ-6(2),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

purchases as bogus and thereafter, to make addition under section 69C of the Act. The Hon‟ble High Court further

M/S. KUVAWALA DRILL EQUIP,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, HQ-6(2),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

purchases as bogus and thereafter, to make addition under section 69C of the Act. The Hon‟ble High Court further