ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

131 of the Income Tax Act. But instead of conducting any inquiry, he just draw certain inference for disbelieving the documents produced by the assessee or received by him in response to his notice under section 133(6) of the Act. it is also pertinent to observe that quantum of income mentioned in the return of income cannot be criteria

H K ISPAT PVT. LTD.,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

131 of the Income Tax Act. But instead of conducting any inquiry, he just draw certain inference for disbelieving the documents produced by the assessee or received by him in response to his notice under section 133(6) of the Act. it is also pertinent to observe that quantum of income mentioned in the return of income cannot be criteria

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

131 of the Income Tax Act. But instead of conducting any inquiry, he just draw certain inference for disbelieving the documents produced by the assessee or received by him in response to his notice under section 133(6) of the Act. it is also pertinent to observe that quantum of income mentioned in the return of income cannot be criteria

SHRI RATNESH METAL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Sinh

131 on 1.5.2013 and answers given to question no.2, 5 and 6, in which they explained the modus operandi of the transaction and how the accommodation entries are given. Assessee has not disputed transaction between the assessee and the M/s. Vitale Bio Science Ltd. 11 ITA Nos. 50 to 53/Ahd/2018 (Ratnesh Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT) Transaction was unearthed

DCIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ALPESHKUMAR C.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1908/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive In Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. Pan: Aeapp9489G

131(1) of the Act recorded where admitted that he never visited Nasik construction site. With respect to payment of Rs. 2.86 crore being depart labour for work at Nasik stated that cash was withdrawn in Ahmadabad and sent to Nasik by employing services of angadia but no detail of angadia was provided. - The assessee submitted two work contract executed

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT MICROWAX LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both of the Appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

TDS u/s 195 nor the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) is attracted. Regarding genuineness of commission-payment, we observe that the assessee has given sufficient documentary evidences to prove the services of Page 41 of 51 ITA No.2682 & 2683/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13 Gujarat Microwax Pvt. Ltd. agents and payment of commission. It is also observed that

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT MICROWAX LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both of the Appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

TDS u/s 195 nor the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) is attracted. Regarding genuineness of commission-payment, we observe that the assessee has given sufficient documentary evidences to prove the services of Page 41 of 51 ITA No.2682 & 2683/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13 Gujarat Microwax Pvt. Ltd. agents and payment of commission. It is also observed that

THE ACIT,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 131. The findings for A.Y. 2008-09 were grouped as follows: • Non-verifiable Vendors: Of 102 vendors, only 46 were presented with partial documentation, leaving 56 subcontractors (listed in Annexure C-1) as non-verifiable. These vendors accounted for substantial subcontracting costs amounting to Rs.20.69 crores. • Non-filers and PAN Issues: Of 411 vendors, 92 failed to file income

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 131. The findings for A.Y. 2008-09 were grouped as follows: • Non-verifiable Vendors: Of 102 vendors, only 46 were presented with partial documentation, leaving 56 subcontractors (listed in Annexure C-1) as non-verifiable. These vendors accounted for substantial subcontracting costs amounting to Rs.20.69 crores. • Non-filers and PAN Issues: Of 411 vendors, 92 failed to file income

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 131. The findings for A.Y. 2008-09 were grouped as follows: • Non-verifiable Vendors: Of 102 vendors, only 46 were presented with partial documentation, leaving 56 subcontractors (listed in Annexure C-1) as non-verifiable. These vendors accounted for substantial subcontracting costs amounting to Rs.20.69 crores. • Non-filers and PAN Issues: Of 411 vendors, 92 failed to file income

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 131. The findings for A.Y. 2008-09 were grouped as follows: • Non-verifiable Vendors: Of 102 vendors, only 46 were presented with partial documentation, leaving 56 subcontractors (listed in Annexure C-1) as non-verifiable. These vendors accounted for substantial subcontracting costs amounting to Rs.20.69 crores. • Non-filers and PAN Issues: Of 411 vendors, 92 failed to file income

THE ACIT,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 131. The findings for A.Y. 2008-09 were grouped as follows: • Non-verifiable Vendors: Of 102 vendors, only 46 were presented with partial documentation, leaving 56 subcontractors (listed in Annexure C-1) as non-verifiable. These vendors accounted for substantial subcontracting costs amounting to Rs.20.69 crores. • Non-filers and PAN Issues: Of 411 vendors, 92 failed to file income

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 131. The findings for A.Y. 2008-09 were grouped as follows: • Non-verifiable Vendors: Of 102 vendors, only 46 were presented with partial documentation, leaving 56 subcontractors (listed in Annexure C-1) as non-verifiable. These vendors accounted for substantial subcontracting costs amounting to Rs.20.69 crores. • Non-filers and PAN Issues: Of 411 vendors, 92 failed to file income

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 131. The findings for A.Y. 2008-09 were grouped as follows: • Non-verifiable Vendors: Of 102 vendors, only 46 were presented with partial documentation, leaving 56 subcontractors (listed in Annexure C-1) as non-verifiable. These vendors accounted for substantial subcontracting costs amounting to Rs.20.69 crores. • Non-filers and PAN Issues: Of 411 vendors, 92 failed to file income

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 131. The findings for A.Y. 2008-09 were grouped as follows: • Non-verifiable Vendors: Of 102 vendors, only 46 were presented with partial documentation, leaving 56 subcontractors (listed in Annexure C-1) as non-verifiable. These vendors accounted for substantial subcontracting costs amounting to Rs.20.69 crores. • Non-filers and PAN Issues: Of 411 vendors, 92 failed to file income

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 131. The findings for A.Y. 2008-09 were grouped as follows: • Non-verifiable Vendors: Of 102 vendors, only 46 were presented with partial documentation, leaving 56 subcontractors (listed in Annexure C-1) as non-verifiable. These vendors accounted for substantial subcontracting costs amounting to Rs.20.69 crores. • Non-filers and PAN Issues: Of 411 vendors, 92 failed to file income

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 131. The findings for A.Y. 2008-09 were grouped as follows: • Non-verifiable Vendors: Of 102 vendors, only 46 were presented with partial documentation, leaving 56 subcontractors (listed in Annexure C-1) as non-verifiable. These vendors accounted for substantial subcontracting costs amounting to Rs.20.69 crores. • Non-filers and PAN Issues: Of 411 vendors, 92 failed to file income

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 131. The findings for A.Y. 2008-09 were grouped as follows: • Non-verifiable Vendors: Of 102 vendors, only 46 were presented with partial documentation, leaving 56 subcontractors (listed in Annexure C-1) as non-verifiable. These vendors accounted for substantial subcontracting costs amounting to Rs.20.69 crores. • Non-filers and PAN Issues: Of 411 vendors, 92 failed to file income

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 131. The findings for A.Y. 2008-09 were grouped as follows: • Non-verifiable Vendors: Of 102 vendors, only 46 were presented with partial documentation, leaving 56 subcontractors (listed in Annexure C-1) as non-verifiable. These vendors accounted for substantial subcontracting costs amounting to Rs.20.69 crores. • Non-filers and PAN Issues: Of 411 vendors, 92 failed to file income