VIPUL NIRANJAN SHAH,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2, PUNE

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1453/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Mr.Vipul Niranjan Shah, The Deputy Commissioner Of 39, Mantri Court, Wellesley Road, Vs Income Tax, Circle-2,Pune. Sangam, Pune – 411001. Pan: Achps 9906 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sagar S.Tilak– Ar Revenue By Shri S.P.Walimbe- Dr Date Of Hearing 17/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/03/2022

bogus bills without actually supplying the goods. Therefore, a show cause notice dt.08.02.2013 was served on the assessee to prove the genuineness of purchases by producing the above parties before the undersigned in substantiation of the claim of purchases. Alternatively, the assessee was also given an opportunity to prove the actual physical movement and delivery of goods

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANVEL CIRCLE PANVEL vs. OUTABOX MEDIA SOLUTIONS LLP, GHATKOPAR MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

TDS challan. From the various details furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noted that these were not sufficient to verify its genuineness. The assessee has not provided the complete addresses of the parties to carry out the third party verification. He observed that the different vendors of the assessee have same PAN and he reproduced some of the instances

M/S. ANGRE PORT (P) LTD.,,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2148/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Angre Port (P) Ltd., Formerly Jaigad Ports Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Plot No.221, Midc, Mirjole, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ratnagiri – 415612 …. Pan: Aabcj5401A Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-3, Ratnagiri

bogus and they have been used in the business due to absence of power supply by Electricity Board and having regard to the location of the sellers and business needs the payment cannot be disallowed on technicalities. 5.3 The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have noted that in so far as these purchases are concerned the employees are implied agents

M/S. ANGRE PORT (P) LTD.,,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2148/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Angre Port (P) Ltd., Formerly Jaigad Ports Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Plot No.221, Midc, Mirjole, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ratnagiri – 415612 …. Pan: Aabcj5401A Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-3, Ratnagiri

bogus and they have been used in the business due to absence of power supply by Electricity Board and having regard to the location of the sellers and business needs the payment cannot be disallowed on technicalities. 5.3 The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have noted that in so far as these purchases are concerned the employees are implied agents

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

bogus expenses amounting to Rs.89,79,588/- under the head ‘Purchase of stilt and cement’ for the year under consideration, which was added in his hands. The assessee had sought set off with the disclosure already made and also it was contended that the said income offered in respect of purchases was part of business income and infrastructural activities

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

bogus expenses amounting to Rs.89,79,588/- under the head ‘Purchase of stilt and cement’ for the year under consideration, which was added in his hands. The assessee had sought set off with the disclosure already made and also it was contended that the said income offered in respect of purchases was part of business income and infrastructural activities

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

bogus expenses amounting to Rs.89,79,588/- under the head ‘Purchase of stilt and cement’ for the year under consideration, which was added in his hands. The assessee had sought set off with the disclosure already made and also it was contended that the said income offered in respect of purchases was part of business income and infrastructural activities

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

bogus expenses amounting to Rs.89,79,588/- under the head ‘Purchase of stilt and cement’ for the year under consideration, which was added in his hands. The assessee had sought set off with the disclosure already made and also it was contended that the said income offered in respect of purchases was part of business income and infrastructural activities

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

bogus expenses amounting to Rs.89,79,588/- under the head ‘Purchase of stilt and cement’ for the year under consideration, which was added in his hands. The assessee had sought set off with the disclosure already made and also it was contended that the said income offered in respect of purchases was part of business income and infrastructural activities

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

bogus expenses amounting to Rs.89,79,588/- under the head ‘Purchase of stilt and cement’ for the year under consideration, which was added in his hands. The assessee had sought set off with the disclosure already made and also it was contended that the said income offered in respect of purchases was part of business income and infrastructural activities

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, KOLHAPUR vs. VIJAYKUMAR RAJARAM SHAH,, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

bogus expenses amounting to Rs.89,79,588/- under the head ‘Purchase of stilt and cement’ for the year under consideration, which was added in his hands. The assessee had sought set off with the disclosure already made and also it was contended that the said income offered in respect of purchases was part of business income and infrastructural activities

H C SARASWAT TOBACCO CO.PVT.LTD,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ICHALKARANJI ,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

TDS has been made and is reflected in his return of income of the person receiving the commission and thereby leaving nothing undisclosed in the matter within the meaning of Sec. 271 ( 1) ( c ). 5. The learned C.I.T. ( A ) erred in understanding the reasonability of the commission transaction considering the size of the business, circumstances of 2 the business transaction

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

purchase of property and they also received on-money consideration at the time of sale of the property. Based on this information, the Assessing Officer issued notices u/s 153A of the Act on 19.01.2018 calling upon the assessee to file the return of income. In response to said notices u/s 153A of the Act, the assessee had filed the returns

HARSHAD HIMMATLAL RUPANI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 5(2), PUNE

In the result the ground number 3 is allowed for Statistical

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.920/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Harshad Himmatlal Rupani, V The Income Tax Officer, 101/102, Ashoka Building, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Green Valley Housing Society, Wanwadi, Pune – 411040. Pan: Adopr6163Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Mahavir Jain Revenue By Smt Neha Thakur – (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 28/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2014-15 Dated 26.08.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 22.11.2016. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Bogus Sundry Creditors have been mentioned by the Assessing Officer, ITO Ward-5(3), Pune. 4.2) The ITO also made addition of Rs.12,97,808/- on account of difference in TDS credit. 4.3) Aggrieved by the Assessment Order the Assessee filed appeal before Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal).Assessee also filed certain documents before CIT(A) who called for Remand

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE vs. INDO GLOBAL ERECTORS PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2349/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Acit, Circle-11, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pune. बनाम / V/S. Indo Global Erectors Pvt. Ltd., 704, Sohrab Hall, Sasoon Road, Pune Station, Pune-411001. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aabci5167N Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Garg Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Pune Dated 24.07.2017 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under :- “1. The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Contrary To Law & To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case In Directing The Assessing Officer To Delete The Addition Of Rs. 18,75,000/- Made On Account Of Unconsidered Amount Of Consideration From Geberit India Manufacturing Ltd. As Per Mou Even Though The Assessee Company Is Following Mercantile System Of Accounting. 3. The Ld. C1T(A) Erred On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case In Directing The Assessing Officer To Delete The Addition Of Rs. 98,20,000/- Made On Account Of Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Various Brokers For Introduction Of Customers To The Assessee Company Even Though The Assessee Company Failed To Discharge Its Onus To Prove That The Expenditure Was Incurred

bogus commission has been effectively checked. The A.O. has disallowed the commission basically on the ground that third party evidence was not filed. The appellant claims that most of the clients being MNCs, getting third party confirmation is quite difficult task. This claim of the appellant has some point as MNCs are generally hesitant to give confirmations in respect

AJAY SHANTILAL LALWANI, HUF,,JALGAON vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.717/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

TDS on gold deposits. The Assessing Officer disallowed the interest of Rs.59,652/- out of total interest of Rs.62,760/- paid on gold deposits. Accordingly, after hearing the parties, ground No. 1.8 raised in appeal by assessee is also dismissed as ‘not pressed’. We shall now take up the rest of the grounds for detailed adjudication in the following paragraphs

BHASKAR DANVE PATIL ,JALNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, JALNA, JALNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes with the directions given above

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

TDS deducted, copies of work issued. 10. Copies of return of income filed along with copies of Audit Report, Balance Sheet and P & L Ale of such sub-contractor." 3.4 The Ld. AO in para 4.3 of the assessment order observed that the assessee in his submission filed in response to the above questionnaire has totally ignored the evidences asked

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANVE vs. RAJENDRA MADHUKAR JOSHI, KAMOTHE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

purchases from Rahul Jagdale at Rs.11,13,250/- and produced invoices. Further, with regard to M/s. R.K. Enterprises even though the bills have been filed but the details filed partially supports the contention of ld. Counsel for the assessee. Net profit of 9.34% is declared by the assessee and the turnover of the assessee has reached to the extent