M/S SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT , CIRCLE- 5, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1864 To 1868/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa (Bk), Pune- 411048. Pan : Aaccs3670F Appellant Respondent

bogus purchases was restored back by the Tribunal to the AO for afresh computation which was the very basis of penalty & therefore it was inevitable for the AO to issue fresh penalty notices. Thus, this ground no.2 is also dismissed. 16. In ground no.3 & 4, the assessee has challenged the imposition of penalty u/s 271

M/S SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT , CIRCLE- 5, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1864 To 1868/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa (Bk), Pune- 411048. Pan : Aaccs3670F Appellant Respondent

bogus purchases was restored back by the Tribunal to the AO for afresh computation which was the very basis of penalty & therefore it was inevitable for the AO to issue fresh penalty notices. Thus, this ground no.2 is also dismissed. 16. In ground no.3 & 4, the assessee has challenged the imposition of penalty u/s 271

M/S SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT , CIRCLE- 5, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1864 To 1868/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa (Bk), Pune- 411048. Pan : Aaccs3670F Appellant Respondent

bogus purchases was restored back by the Tribunal to the AO for afresh computation which was the very basis of penalty & therefore it was inevitable for the AO to issue fresh penalty notices. Thus, this ground no.2 is also dismissed. 16. In ground no.3 & 4, the assessee has challenged the imposition of penalty u/s 271

M/S. M M BROTHERS,DHULE vs. ITO, WARD 1, DHULE, DHULE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases and other additions of Rs.1,35,000/-. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 4. Subsequently

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE, PUNE vs. SHREE CHANAKYA EDUCATION SOCIETY, AUNDH, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

purchases as bogus and that too u/s 68 of the Act. 26. We further find merit in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that when the assessee is registered u/s 12A and its application of income during the year is Rs.1,08,17,64,353/- as against income of Rs.102,37,86,355/-, there was no need

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE, PUNE vs. SHREE CHANAKYA EDUCATION SOCIETY, AUNDH ,PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

purchases as bogus and that too u/s 68 of the Act. 26. We further find merit in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that when the assessee is registered u/s 12A and its application of income during the year is Rs.1,08,17,64,353/- as against income of Rs.102,37,86,355/-, there was no need

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. ANIL JAIRAM GOEL, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases has set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh in the light of judgement passed by Hon’ble opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 12. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and without going into merits

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. ANIL JAIRAM GOEL, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases has set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh in the light of judgement passed by Hon’ble opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 12. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and without going into merits

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. CTR MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

bogus purchases and no contrary order brought on record against the view taken by the ITAT. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and it is justified. Thus, the penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271

NIWAS SPINNING MILLS LIMITED,SOLAPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

The appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.724/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Niwas Spinning Mills Ltd., The Acit, C/O. Vijay Ramniwas Jaju, 406- V Circle-1, Solapur. A, West Mangalwar Peth, Chati S Galli, Solapur – 413002. Pan: Aaacn6350 P Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Girish Ladda – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 29/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023

penalty u/s 271(1)(C) not applicable on deeming additions. 4) None of the creditors were found to be sham or bogus by the AO. 5) All the creditors were genuine regular business creditors, ledgers attached from Page 4-37 of PB to prove that credit balances arose out of regular business purchases

AADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

Penalty proceedings are separately initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) / NFAC challenging the validity of re-assessment proceedings as well as the addition on merits. However, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC was not satisfied with

HAMAJA MOHAMMED MALPEKAR,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RATNAGIRI WARD, RATNAGIRI

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

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are hereby initiated for concealment of income to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- (iii) Addition of Rs.6,45,95,500/- comprising of Rs.1,65,66,500/-, Rs.4,60,57,000/- and Rs.19,72,000/- on account of unexplained/ unsubstantiated sundry creditors/booking advance/unexplained liability by observing in paras 8.4, 9.2 and 10.3 as under

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLE 1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. HAMAJA MOHAMMED MALPEKAR, MAHARASHTRA

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

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are hereby initiated for concealment of income to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- (iii) Addition of Rs.6,45,95,500/- comprising of Rs.1,65,66,500/-, Rs.4,60,57,000/- and Rs.19,72,000/- on account of unexplained/ unsubstantiated sundry creditors/booking advance/unexplained liability by observing in paras 8.4, 9.2 and 10.3 as under

DCIT-CIRCLE 7 PUNE, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK PUNE vs. TRIO CHEMSUCROTECH ENG. PROJECTS PVT. LTD, PUNE

Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income have also been initiated separately.”\n5. Ld. AO also noticed that assessee had claimed an expense of Rs.2,31,13,761/- on account of provision for pending expenses relating to the contracts but since there was no plausible explanation by the assessee ld. AO came to conclusion that provisioning

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 NASSHIK, NASHIK vs. HARSH CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Circle – 1, Harsh Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Nashik Sanskruti, Murkute Colony, Vs. New Pandit Colony, Sharanpur Road, Nashik – 422002 Pan: Aacch2277H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj S. Dandgaval Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 03-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.12.2023 Of The Cit(A) / Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue In The Grounds Of Appeal Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Restricting The Disallowance To Rs.2,24,191/- As Against Rs.1,25,51,607/- Proposed By The Assessing Officer In The Remand Report As Against Rs.4,38,96,880/- Added By Him In The Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee filed certain details, based on which the ld.CIT(A) sought remand report from the Assessing Officer, who proposed an addition of Rs.1,25,51,607/-. After considering the remand report of the Assessing Officer and rejoinder

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

penalty orders are passed for violations u/s 271(1)(c) and\n271B and 271D and 271(1)(b)... and so on. An exercise of missing two\nseparate orders under one common order, is besides the law and\nwholly incorrect.\nD. Mis-match of authorities (without prejudice to main challenges)\nFrom a collective perusal of sections 12AA/12AB, etc. it reveals that

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

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

bogus\ncompanies?\nAns: The accommodation entries by way of unsecured loans were taken to\npurchase properties. I did not have the amounts in the bank accounts but\nhad the cash. Therefore to purchase the properties, I had to do this\nexercise.\n6\nITA No.1178/PUN/2023\nITA No.2017/PUN/2024\nThe return of income for AY 2011-12 filed on 29/09/2011 by the assessee