SAITAWADEKAR JEWELLERS ,CHIPLUN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE 1, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.870/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Saitawadekarjewellers, The Pr.Cit, Pune-1. 1825, B2 Padma Talkies Bldg, Vs Opp.Urban Bank Bazar Peth, Chiplun – 415605. Pan : - Appellant/Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena,Irs – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03/05/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assesseeisdirected Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-1Dated 22.11.2022Emanating From The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 27.11.2017Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16. The Assesseehas Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Pcit In His Order U/S 263, While Giving Effect To The Order Dtd.31.05.2022 Of The Honorable Itat, Erred In Making The Following Additions To The Income Determined Vide Assessment Order Saitawadekar Jewellers [A]

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of thirty per cent; and (b) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause (a). (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no deduction

MEENAMANI GANGA BUILDER LLP ,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

68 of the\nAct. In response to which the Appellant furnished details available.\n2. 3. 12. Consequently, notice u/s 263 of the Act was received by the\nAppellant on the grounds that order passed under section 153A of\nthe Act is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, so far as the\ngenuniness, Identity and creditworthiness of the lenders

DR. PRATAP PANDHIRANATH PATIL,PUNE vs. PCIT - 2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

revision proceedings u/s 263 Act. Section 68 of the Act mandates that if any credit appears in the books of an assessee

SONAL SANDEEP SATAV,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

revise the assessment order. 8. The Finance Act, 2015 inserted Explanation-2 to section 263 of the Act w.e.f. 01.06.2015 and CBDT in Circular No. 19 of 2015, dated 27.11.2015; (2015) 379 ITR (ST) 19 has explained that interpretation of the expression “erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of 16 ITA No.945/PUN/2024

SRL CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,JALNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.847/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Srl Construction Pvt. Ltd., V The Acit, 197, Khasgaon, Jafrabad, S Central Circle-2, Jalna – 444203. Aurangabad. Pan: Aaqcs7227L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Prateekjha – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr.Dipak P.Ripote, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central)-Nagpur, Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 08.03.2024 For A.Y.2019-20. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. A) On The Facts & Circumstance Prevailing In The Case & In Law, Honorable Pr. Cit (Central), Nagpur Has Erred In Not Considering The Submission Made By The Appellant In Fair And

68,600 of raw materials like ITA No.847/PUN/2024 [A] sand, khadi and dabber exceeding Rs.10,000/-without appreciating that the Ld Assessing Officer had carried out specific inquires on this issue before passing the Assessment Order 7. The Ld Principal Commissioner erred in passing order u/s 263 setting aside the Assessment Order by imposing/substituting his opinion on the legally tenable

SACHIN RAMDAS MOHITE,,SATARA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-3,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am

Revision by CIT was therefore sustainable." 4.1 Similarly Hon’ble High Court of Kolkata upheld the action u/s 263 of the Act in the case of CIT Vs. Maithan International (56 taxmann.com 283) holding that Assessing Officer could not accept genuineness of loan taken by the assessee from various creditors merely on the basis of their bank statements and letter

M/S SUNIL CHETNDAS KATARIYA, HUF,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1, , NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.261/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Sunil Chetandas Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Nashik. Katariya, 649, Sai Villa, Lam Road, Deolali Camp, Nashik- 422401. Pan : Aaths6634R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Nashik [‘Pcit’] Dated 12.03.2021 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Pcit Erred In Holding That The Asst. Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 In The Case Of The Assessee For A.Y.2011 - 12 Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & Thereby

section 68 of the Act and, therefore, the Assessing Officer should have made addition u/s 68 5 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Accordingly, the ld. PCIT issued a show- cause notice u/s 263 of the Act dated 23.02.2021. In response to the show-cause notice, the appellant had not responded. In the circumstances, the ld. PCIT had formed an opinion

DATTATRAY HANMANTRAO DESAI,KARAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

68 has accepted the same in a mechanical manner. 22. We find the provisions of section 263 of the Act read as under: ―263. (1) The [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein

LEKHAKOSH KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI SANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. PR. CIT, PUNE-4, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

revision u/s 263 of the Act. 8. As seen from the Balance Sheet, the assessee has received deposits amounting to Rs. 59,709/-, Paid up capital at Rs. 2,61,27,640/-, reserve fund at Rs. 81,32,297/- as on 31.03.2017. Against the same, the assessee has advanced Rs. 1,85.17,879/- only to its members. Thus, around

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

68,944/- 2015-16 27,54,93,430/- 28,04,03,784/- 5. From the above table, it is evident that the Assessing Officer made certain additions (i.e. Rs.42,24,481/- for A.Y. 2009-10) on account of bogus purchases calculating at the rate of 2% of URD purchases made in cash on ad-hoc basis. This is common addition

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

68,944/- 2015-16 27,54,93,430/- 28,04,03,784/- 5. From the above table, it is evident that the Assessing Officer made certain additions (i.e. Rs.42,24,481/- for A.Y. 2009-10) on account of bogus purchases calculating at the rate of 2% of URD purchases made in cash on ad-hoc basis. This is common addition

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

68,944/- 2015-16 27,54,93,430/- 28,04,03,784/- 5. From the above table, it is evident that the Assessing Officer made certain additions (i.e. Rs.42,24,481/- for A.Y. 2009-10) on account of bogus purchases calculating at the rate of 2% of URD purchases made in cash on ad-hoc basis. This is common addition

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

68,944/- 2015-16 27,54,93,430/- 28,04,03,784/- 5. From the above table, it is evident that the Assessing Officer made certain additions (i.e. Rs.42,24,481/- for A.Y. 2009-10) on account of bogus purchases calculating at the rate of 2% of URD purchases made in cash on ad-hoc basis. This is common addition

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

68,944/- 2015-16 27,54,93,430/- 28,04,03,784/- 5. From the above table, it is evident that the Assessing Officer made certain additions (i.e. Rs.42,24,481/- for A.Y. 2009-10) on account of bogus purchases calculating at the rate of 2% of URD purchases made in cash on ad-hoc basis. This is common addition

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

68,944/- 2015-16 27,54,93,430/- 28,04,03,784/- 5. From the above table, it is evident that the Assessing Officer made certain additions (i.e. Rs.42,24,481/- for A.Y. 2009-10) on account of bogus purchases calculating at the rate of 2% of URD purchases made in cash on ad-hoc basis. This is common addition

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

68,944/- 2015-16 27,54,93,430/- 28,04,03,784/- 5. From the above table, it is evident that the Assessing Officer made certain additions (i.e. Rs.42,24,481/- for A.Y. 2009-10) on account of bogus purchases calculating at the rate of 2% of URD purchases made in cash on ad-hoc basis. This is common addition

PRIYA KISHOR JAGTIANI,,NASHIK vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1,, NASHIK

In the result, all the above three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

section 139 of the Act were filed for the years under consideration. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had issued notice u/s 148 on 17.01.2014 calling upon the assessee to file the return of income as the income escaped assessment to tax. In response to notice u/s 148, the appellant had filed the return of income on 20.02.2014 disclosing returned income

PRIYA KISHOR JAGTIANI,,NASHIK vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1,, NASHIK

In the result, all the above three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

section 139 of the Act were filed for the years under consideration. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had issued notice u/s 148 on 17.01.2014 calling upon the assessee to file the return of income as the income escaped assessment to tax. In response to notice u/s 148, the appellant had filed the return of income on 20.02.2014 disclosing returned income

PRIYA KISHOR JAGTIANI,,NASHIK vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1,, NASHIK

In the result, all the above three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

section 139 of the Act were filed for the years under consideration. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had issued notice u/s 148 on 17.01.2014 calling upon the assessee to file the return of income as the income escaped assessment to tax. In response to notice u/s 148, the appellant had filed the return of income on 20.02.2014 disclosing returned income