CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

setting aside the said asst. order for verification of the following issues - a. Genuineness of total URD purchase and determine the quantum of such purchase which is non verifiable. b. The genuineness of the corresponding sales shown by the assessee against such purchases. c. Reasonable estimation of net profit on bogus purchases. 2] The learned Pr. CIT failed to appreciate

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

setting aside the said asst. order for verification of the following issues - a. Genuineness of total URD purchase and determine the quantum of such purchase which is non verifiable. b. The genuineness of the corresponding sales shown by the assessee against such purchases. c. Reasonable estimation of net profit on bogus purchases. 2] The learned Pr. CIT failed to appreciate

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

setting aside the said asst. order for verification of the following issues - a. Genuineness of total URD purchase and determine the quantum of such purchase which is non verifiable. b. The genuineness of the corresponding sales shown by the assessee against such purchases. c. Reasonable estimation of net profit on bogus purchases. 2] The learned Pr. CIT failed to appreciate

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

setting aside the said asst. order for verification of the following issues - a. Genuineness of total URD purchase and determine the quantum of such purchase which is non verifiable. b. The genuineness of the corresponding sales shown by the assessee against such purchases. c. Reasonable estimation of net profit on bogus purchases. 2] The learned Pr. CIT failed to appreciate

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

setting aside the said asst. order for verification of the following issues - a. Genuineness of total URD purchase and determine the quantum of such purchase which is non verifiable. b. The genuineness of the corresponding sales shown by the assessee against such purchases. c. Reasonable estimation of net profit on bogus purchases. 2] The learned Pr. CIT failed to appreciate

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

setting aside the said asst. order for verification of the following issues - a. Genuineness of total URD purchase and determine the quantum of such purchase which is non verifiable. b. The genuineness of the corresponding sales shown by the assessee against such purchases. c. Reasonable estimation of net profit on bogus purchases. 2] The learned Pr. CIT failed to appreciate

PRABHAT RAJMAL NIBJIYA,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(3),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

loss of revenue. The addition be deleted. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C is not justified. 5. The appellant craves to leave, add/amend or alter any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2. The brief facts in this case are that the assessee is an individual

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 14 (3),, PUNE vs. JEEVAN POPATLAL BHALIYA, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

loss account.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of civil construction. He is working with various builders for last 20 years or so. The assessee had filed the return of income on 24-3-2010 declaring total income of Rs. 10,51,636/-. The case was reopened

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

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and both the COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

losses of Rs.1,94,50,981/-. 5. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had shown total sales of Rs.224,01,68,956/- and total purchases to the tune of Rs.195,05,94,568/-. From the various details furnished by the assessee he noted that the assessee was found to be involved

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;

bogus, culminated the assessment u/s 143 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, by disallowing the entire amount debited to profit & loss account [for short “P&L”]. 3.4 In an appeal before first appellate authority [for short “FAA”] the assessee reiterated his submission, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) in the light of decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. RDS CONSTRUCTION CO.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2731 To 2733/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Kolhapur. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Rds Construction Co., 233/3, Malati Towers, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur-416003. Pan : Aabfr4457M ……""यथ" / Respondent Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Ghai Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Three Appeals Under Consideration. Ita Nos.2731 & 2732/Pun/2016 Filed By The Revenue Are Against The Common Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Dated 26.09.2016 U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2010-11 Respectively.

bogus purchases are very much recorded in the books of account. 10.1 Considering the above, we are of the opinion, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer in both the appeals are unsustainable on legal issue. Therefore, we find the orders of the CIT(A) in both the years are fair and reasonable and they do not call

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. RDS CONSTRUCTION CO.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2731 To 2733/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Kolhapur. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Rds Construction Co., 233/3, Malati Towers, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur-416003. Pan : Aabfr4457M ……""यथ" / Respondent Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Ghai Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Three Appeals Under Consideration. Ita Nos.2731 & 2732/Pun/2016 Filed By The Revenue Are Against The Common Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Dated 26.09.2016 U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2010-11 Respectively.

bogus purchases are very much recorded in the books of account. 10.1 Considering the above, we are of the opinion, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer in both the appeals are unsustainable on legal issue. Therefore, we find the orders of the CIT(A) in both the years are fair and reasonable and they do not call

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. RDS CONSTRUCTION CO.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2731 To 2733/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Kolhapur. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Rds Construction Co., 233/3, Malati Towers, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur-416003. Pan : Aabfr4457M ……""यथ" / Respondent Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Ghai Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Three Appeals Under Consideration. Ita Nos.2731 & 2732/Pun/2016 Filed By The Revenue Are Against The Common Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Dated 26.09.2016 U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2010-11 Respectively.

bogus purchases are very much recorded in the books of account. 10.1 Considering the above, we are of the opinion, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer in both the appeals are unsustainable on legal issue. Therefore, we find the orders of the CIT(A) in both the years are fair and reasonable and they do not call

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

loss of (-) Rs.2,65,218/-. The return was selected for scrutiny through CASS and accordingly, notice u/s.143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was served on the assessee. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act by making various additions/disallowances as appearing in the assessment order. 3. The only grievance

KHANDESH BUILDERS LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

bogus and iii. Not allowing speculation losses to be carried forward and no set off of speculation loss. 2. In facts, circumstances and position of law ld. CIT-Appeals II, Nashik erred in confirming addition of Rs. 2,55,00,000/- on account of shares subscription money received. 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or substitute

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raising an interference to that effect. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shah & Bros Vs CIT (37 ITR 271] held that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. Since the transaction from the assessee is genuine no addition or disallowance can be made on this account

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

purchaser, therefore, the transaction was not undertaken at arm‟s length. C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 (iv) The Hon‟ble High Court of Republic Singapore had not determined the actual sale consideration and the whole transaction is premeditate, is dubious transactions entered into with the intention of claiming loss for availing the benefit of losses and proceeded to apply the ratio

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

purchaser, therefore, the transaction was not undertaken at arm‟s length. C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 (iv) The Hon‟ble High Court of Republic Singapore had not determined the actual sale consideration and the whole transaction is premeditate, is dubious transactions entered into with the intention of claiming loss for availing the benefit of losses and proceeded to apply the ratio