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

Section 68 and 69C of the I.T Act, 1961”. The said Gujarat High Court‟s decision has been affirmed by the Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP filed by the assessee and accordingly, it was held by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax that the addition on percentage basis on bogus/hawala purchases is not correct

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"

9. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue relied heavily on the order of the Pr.CIT. AO’s failure to make addition of 100% of entire bogus purchase of Rs.3,47,78,546/- constitutes the order erroneous and AO’s failure to conduct investigation to sundry creditors also makes the order erroneous

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"

9. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue relied heavily on the order of the Pr.CIT. AO’s failure to make addition of 100% of entire bogus purchase of Rs.3,47,78,546/- constitutes the order erroneous and AO’s failure to conduct investigation to sundry creditors also makes the order erroneous

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"

9. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue relied heavily on the order of the Pr.CIT. AO’s failure to make addition of 100% of entire bogus purchase of Rs.3,47,78,546/- constitutes the order erroneous and AO’s failure to conduct investigation to sundry creditors also makes the order erroneous

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

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

9. Based on the arguments advanced by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under: 5.9 I have carefully perused the ground of appeal, facts of the case, written submission uploaded as well as judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant on the issue. Assessing Officer has made

CHETAS CONTROL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

section 133(6) of A.Ys.2009-10 to 2011-12 the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the assessee failing to file any documentary evidence of delivery of goods, addition is to be upheld in the hands of assessee on account of such bogus purchases. IV. The next instance is the case of goods

CHETAS CONTROL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

section 133(6) of A.Ys.2009-10 to 2011-12 the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the assessee failing to file any documentary evidence of delivery of goods, addition is to be upheld in the hands of assessee on account of such bogus purchases. IV. The next instance is the case of goods

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

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

9,79,32,384 1,76,27,829 11,55,60,213 5 M/s. Khushi Traders Prop. Babusha Kasbe 2,52,47,771 45,44,599 2,97,92,370 6 Raja Cement House 1,99,46,143 35,90,308 2,35,36,451 Total 17,49,83,488 3,14,97,032 20,64,80,520 19. However

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. ASHAPURA RUBBER UDYOG,, NASHIK

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section 133(6) of the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the bogus purchases. IV. The next instance is the case of goods which have been admittedly sold by the hawala dealer and has been received by the assessee, who in turn had maintained quantitative details and also evidence of its movement i.e. transportation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. ASHAPURA RUBBER UDYOG,, NASHIK

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section 133(6) of the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the bogus purchases. IV. The next instance is the case of goods which have been admittedly sold by the hawala dealer and has been received by the assessee, who in turn had maintained quantitative details and also evidence of its movement i.e. transportation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. ASHAPURA RUBBER UDYOG,, NASHIK

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section 133(6) of the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the bogus purchases. IV. The next instance is the case of goods which have been admittedly sold by the hawala dealer and has been received by the assessee, who in turn had maintained quantitative details and also evidence of its movement i.e. transportation

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. M/S. DELUXE TUBE TRADERS & SCRAP CENTRE,, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

bogus purchases. For this proposition, he relied on the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Chhabi Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT and others in ITA No.795/PUN/2014 and connected appeals, dated 28-04-2017 for the A.Y. 2010-11. 8. Ld. DR for the Revenue relied on the order of CIT(A) dutifully. 9

M/S. DELUXE TUBE TRADERS & SCRAP CENTRE,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

bogus purchases. For this proposition, he relied on the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Chhabi Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT and others in ITA No.795/PUN/2014 and connected appeals, dated 28-04-2017 for the A.Y. 2010-11. 8. Ld. DR for the Revenue relied on the order of CIT(A) dutifully. 9

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. M/S. DELUXE TUBE TRADERS & SCRAP CENTRE,, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

bogus purchases. For this proposition, he relied on the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Chhabi Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT and others in ITA No.795/PUN/2014 and connected appeals, dated 28-04-2017 for the A.Y. 2010-11. 8. Ld. DR for the Revenue relied on the order of CIT(A) dutifully. 9

INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. DEEPAK SHANKAR PANASKAR,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 203 & 204/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11

bogus purchases over and above the GP declared by the assessee. 7. We have considered the decision in the case of Mukeshkumar Pukhraj Mehta Vs. The Income Tax Officer (supra.) on which the ld. DR has placed reliance. In the said case, the assessee had admitted to the addition of purchases made from the hawala dealers. No supporting documents substantiating

INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. DEEPAK SHANKAR PANASKAR,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 203 & 204/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11

bogus purchases over and above the GP declared by the assessee. 7. We have considered the decision in the case of Mukeshkumar Pukhraj Mehta Vs. The Income Tax Officer (supra.) on which the ld. DR has placed reliance. In the said case, the assessee had admitted to the addition of purchases made from the hawala dealers. No supporting documents substantiating

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