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"

set aside. Assessee filed a letter dated Nil giving written submissions contesting against the said proposal of the Pr.CIT. In support, assessee relied on various decisions in this regard. Subsequently, the Pr.CIT analysed the details furnished by the assessee and held that AO completed these assessments without fully obtaining the details from the assessee. Further, the Pr.CIT held that

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"

set aside. Assessee filed a letter dated Nil giving written submissions contesting against the said proposal of the Pr.CIT. In support, assessee relied on various decisions in this regard. Subsequently, the Pr.CIT analysed the details furnished by the assessee and held that AO completed these assessments without fully obtaining the details from the assessee. Further, the Pr.CIT held that

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"

set aside. Assessee filed a letter dated Nil giving written submissions contesting against the said proposal of the Pr.CIT. In support, assessee relied on various decisions in this regard. Subsequently, the Pr.CIT analysed the details furnished by the assessee and held that AO completed these assessments without fully obtaining the details from the assessee. Further, the Pr.CIT held that

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

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

Loss Account including, in particular, sales and various expenses as also the quantitative details of purchases/sales/manufacturing/consumption etc. Further complete quantitative records of stock have been maintained in which no discrepancies have been found either by the auditors or the Assessing Officer. In particular, the Tax Audit Report furnished u/s 44AB of the Act gives the complete quantitative total

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. SMT. JAYSHREE SURESH SHARMA,, DHULE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1646 To 1648/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 वष"

set aside to the file of the A.O/CIT(A) since all the relevant facts are on record and the issue is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent ruling. In this respect, it is to be noted that the business of the assessee is closed due to lack of profits

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. SMT. JAYSHREE SURESH SHARMA,, DHULE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1646 To 1648/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 वष"

set aside to the file of the A.O/CIT(A) since all the relevant facts are on record and the issue is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent ruling. In this respect, it is to be noted that the business of the assessee is closed due to lack of profits

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. MOHD. ASHIF SIDDIQUI,, RAIGAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2318 & 2319/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12

set of facts, these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are being disposed of vide this common order. A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 2. The brief facts of the case as emanating from records are: The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of M.S. ERW, seamless pipes, Electric Poles, etc. Information was received by the Department

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. MOHD. ASHIF SIDDIQUI,, RAIGAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2318 & 2319/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12

set of facts, these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are being disposed of vide this common order. A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 2. The brief facts of the case as emanating from records are: The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of M.S. ERW, seamless pipes, Electric Poles, etc. Information was received by the Department

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

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