INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR vs. MADHAV COPPER LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three by the assessee, stand dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

addition in respect of bogus purchases at the rate of 6 per cent of total purchases considering only income component

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR vs. MADHAV COPPER LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three by the assessee, stand dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

addition in respect of bogus purchases at the rate of 6 per cent of total purchases considering only income component

MADHAV COPPER LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three by the assessee, stand dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

addition in respect of bogus purchases at the rate of 6 per cent of total purchases considering only income component

RUDRA GLOBAL INFRA PRODUCTS LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

addition to extent of 12.5 per cent of bogus purchases. In further appeal, the Gujarat High Court held that since purchases were not entirely bogus but were made from parties other than those mentioned in books of account, only profit element embedded in such purchases could be added to assessee's income

MADHAV COPPER LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three\nby the assessee, stand dismissed

addition with respect to said purchases, Tribunal was justified in limiting\naddition in respect of bogus purchases at the rate of 6 per cent of total purchases\nconsidering only income

MADHAV COPPER LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three\nby the assessee, stand dismissed

addition with respect to said purchases, Tribunal was justified in limiting\naddition in respect of bogus purchases at the rate of 6 per cent of total purchases\nconsidering only income

DCIT, CIRCLE -2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, PRAHLAD NAGAR vs. PANCHAM DEVELOPERS, CHANDKHEDA

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

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years: 2017-18

purchases of Rs. 3,50,55,146/- made from the four parties as bogus and accordingly made the addition. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 27.12.2019 at total income

BHAGAT MARKETING PVT LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, in light of the above observations and the judicial precedents on the subject, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

additions so far as bogus purchases are concerned. The second contention of the Counsel for the assessee is that even if the purchases were to be considered as bogus, the assessing officer took a legally plausible view and made a disallowance/addition of 12.5% and added the same to the income

GUJARAT VAIBHAV PUBLICATIONS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

income out of bogus purchase, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that no addition for entire bogus purchase was made, rather

GUJARAT VAIBHAV PUBLICATIONS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

income out of bogus purchase, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that no addition for entire bogus purchase was made, rather

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR vs. LEELA GREENSHIP RECYCLING PRIVATE LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of above directions

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 2111/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Leela Greenship Recycling Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Office No.303, 3Rd Floor, बनाम/ Commissioner V/S. B Wing, Leela Efcee, Of Income Tax, Near Aksharwadi Temple, Circle-1, Waghawadi Road, Bhavnagar. Bhavnagar-364002. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aagcg8956L

addition of Rs. 1,40,03,670/- under section 69C of the Act treating the purchases from M/s. Mahadev Trading Co. as bogus, resulting in the assessed income

THE JT.CIT, CIRCLE-6(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI NILESH RAMESHCHANDRA SHAH,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

income at Rs. 81,94,970/- after making I.T.A No. 267/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 3 Jt. CIT Vs. Shri Nilesh Rameshchandra Shah addition on account of rejection of books of accounts and addition on account of disallowance of bogus purchase

LEELA GREENSHIP RECYCLING PVT. LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes in terms of above directions

addition of Rs.\n1,40,03,670/- under section 69C of the Act treating the purchases from M/s.\nMahadev Trading Co. as bogus, resulting in the assessed income

DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. B CHOKSHI CHEM PVT LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

bogus purchases for the purpose of reducing its tax liability. It was found that some of the purchases were made by the GPCL from the assessee- company also. During the assessment proceedings, the additions were made in the income

DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. B CHOKSHI CHEM PVT LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

bogus purchases for the purpose of reducing its tax liability. It was found that some of the purchases were made by the GPCL from the assessee- company also. During the assessment proceedings, the additions were made in the income

DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. B CHOKSHI CHEM PVT LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

bogus purchases for the purpose of reducing its tax liability. It was found that some of the purchases were made by the GPCL from the assessee- company also. During the assessment proceedings, the additions were made in the income

DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. B CHOKSHI CHEM PVT LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

bogus purchases for the purpose of reducing its tax liability. It was found that some of the purchases were made by the GPCL from the assessee- company also. During the assessment proceedings, the additions were made in the income

BALDEVBHAI LALABHAI LUHAR,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(2), PRATYAKSHAR BHAVAN,AHMEDABAD

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

income of assessee on ground that same were bogus purchases, since it was not disputed that purchases were actually made and payments for same were Baldevbhai L Luhar vs. ITO Asst.Year 2015-16 - 10– made through account payee cheque and further, assessee had already declared 7.5 per cent as gross profit, Tribunal was justified in restricting addition

M/S. GSP CROP SCIENCE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) pertaining to Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 2. It was common ground that one of the issues involved in both the appeals arose in the background of identical facts. Therefore, both the appeals were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common consolidated order