RAJENDRA KANHIYALAL BHARTIYA,,JALNA vs. INCOME -TAX OFFICER,, JALNA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1424/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Rajendra Kanhiyalal Bhartiya, Kerosene Dealer, Naya Bazar, Shola Chowk, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalna – 431203 …. Pan: Amspb4560E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 1, Jalna आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1425/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Kailashchand Bhartiya, Prop. Of Dainik Krushnaniti, Naya Bazar, Shola Chowk, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalna – 431203 …. Pan: Afnpb3190E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-1, Jalna

house property and hence, the claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act. In the facts of each of the persons, balance capital was claimed at Nil. The details of the same are reproduced by the Assessing Officer under para 6 of assessment order. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee had received land on family

SANJAY KAILASCHAND BHARTIYA,,JALNA vs. INCOME -TAX OFFICER,, JALNA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1424/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Rajendra Kanhiyalal Bhartiya, Kerosene Dealer, Naya Bazar, Shola Chowk, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalna – 431203 …. Pan: Amspb4560E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 1, Jalna आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1425/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Kailashchand Bhartiya, Prop. Of Dainik Krushnaniti, Naya Bazar, Shola Chowk, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalna – 431203 …. Pan: Afnpb3190E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-1, Jalna

house property and hence, the claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act. In the facts of each of the persons, balance capital was claimed at Nil. The details of the same are reproduced by the Assessing Officer under para 6 of assessment order. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee had received land on family

MARUTI G.THOPTE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

house properties. He accordingly worked out the long term capital gain at Rs.69,47,370/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who upheld the order of AO by holding as under : Ground No.1: In this ground the appellant challenged the “4.1 reference to the District Valuation Officer by the AO on the ground

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

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, we find the Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment order, has made the entire addition of bogus / untested purchases and these orders of the Assessing Officer passed u/s 143(3) / 147 were passed

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

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

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, we find the Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment order, has made the entire addition of bogus / untested purchases and these orders of the Assessing Officer passed u/s 143(3) / 147 were passed

SHRI GULAB MARUTI DHANKUDE,PUNE vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Housing, the Ld. AO exercised his jurisdiction u/s 133(6) of the Act and called relevant information from his banker viz; Vishweshwar Co-op. Bank, Union Bank and PDCC Bank with whom the assessee maintained his bank accounts. The bank statements did not confirm the receipt/credit of aforestated amount but newly revealed to the Ld. AO that, during the year

SHRI GULAB MARUTI DHAKUNDE ,PUNE vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE , PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Housing, the Ld. AO exercised his jurisdiction u/s 133(6) of the Act and called relevant information from his banker viz; Vishweshwar Co-op. Bank, Union Bank and PDCC Bank with whom the assessee maintained his bank accounts. The bank statements did not confirm the receipt/credit of aforestated amount but newly revealed to the Ld. AO that, during the year

SHRI GULAB MARUTI DHAKUNDE ,PUNE vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE , PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Housing, the Ld. AO exercised his jurisdiction u/s 133(6) of the Act and called relevant information from his banker viz; Vishweshwar Co-op. Bank, Union Bank and PDCC Bank with whom the assessee maintained his bank accounts. The bank statements did not confirm the receipt/credit of aforestated amount but newly revealed to the Ld. AO that, during the year

SHRI GULAB MARUTI DHAKUNDE,PUNE vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Housing, the Ld. AO exercised his jurisdiction u/s 133(6) of the Act and called relevant information from his banker viz; Vishweshwar Co-op. Bank, Union Bank and PDCC Bank with whom the assessee maintained his bank accounts. The bank statements did not confirm the receipt/credit of aforestated amount but newly revealed to the Ld. AO that, during the year

SHRI GULAB MARUTI DHAKUNDE ,PUNE vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE , PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Housing, the Ld. AO exercised his jurisdiction u/s 133(6) of the Act and called relevant information from his banker viz; Vishweshwar Co-op. Bank, Union Bank and PDCC Bank with whom the assessee maintained his bank accounts. The bank statements did not confirm the receipt/credit of aforestated amount but newly revealed to the Ld. AO that, during the year

SHRI GULAB MARUTI DHAKUNDE ,PUNE vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE , PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Housing, the Ld. AO exercised his jurisdiction u/s 133(6) of the Act and called relevant information from his banker viz; Vishweshwar Co-op. Bank, Union Bank and PDCC Bank with whom the assessee maintained his bank accounts. The bank statements did not confirm the receipt/credit of aforestated amount but newly revealed to the Ld. AO that, during the year

SHRI GULAB MARUTI DHANKUDE,PUNE vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Housing, the Ld. AO exercised his jurisdiction u/s 133(6) of the Act and called relevant information from his banker viz; Vishweshwar Co-op. Bank, Union Bank and PDCC Bank with whom the assessee maintained his bank accounts. The bank statements did not confirm the receipt/credit of aforestated amount but newly revealed to the Ld. AO that, during the year

SHRI GULAB MARUTI DHAKUNDE ,PUNE vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE , PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Housing, the Ld. AO exercised his jurisdiction u/s 133(6) of the Act and called relevant information from his banker viz; Vishweshwar Co-op. Bank, Union Bank and PDCC Bank with whom the assessee maintained his bank accounts. The bank statements did not confirm the receipt/credit of aforestated amount but newly revealed to the Ld. AO that, during the year

KISAN RAGHUNATH NANAWARE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 329/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03 Shri Kisan Raghunath Nanaware, New Market Yard, At & Post Nira, Tal. Purandar, Dist. Pune. Pan : Aeupn7689E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3), Pune. ……""यथ" / Respondent

6 A.Y.2002-03 house building at Nira, Tq. Purandar, Dist.-Pune during the period 1998 to 2002. To determine the actual cost of construction of the building, the property was referred to DVO-II, Mumbai. The DVO determined the cost of the building at Rs. 43.12 Lakhs. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order, made addition of Rs.43.12 Lakhs. The assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

section 133(6) of the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the assessee failing to file any documentary evidence of delivery of 18 Serum Institute of India Ltd., A.Yrs. 2011-12 and 2012-13 goods, addition is to be upheld in the hands of assessee on account of such bogus purchases. IV. The next

SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

section 133(6) of the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the assessee failing to file any documentary evidence of delivery of 18 Serum Institute of India Ltd., A.Yrs. 2011-12 and 2012-13 goods, addition is to be upheld in the hands of assessee on account of such bogus purchases. IV. The next

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

section 133(6) of the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the assessee failing to file any documentary evidence of delivery of 18 Serum Institute of India Ltd., A.Yrs. 2011-12 and 2012-13 goods, addition is to be upheld in the hands of assessee on account of such bogus purchases. IV. The next

SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

section 133(6) of the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the assessee failing to file any documentary evidence of delivery of 18 Serum Institute of India Ltd., A.Yrs. 2011-12 and 2012-13 goods, addition is to be upheld in the hands of assessee on account of such bogus purchases. IV. The next