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

bogus purchases, since it was not disputed that purchases were actually made and payments for same were made through account payee cheque and further, assessee ITA No.254 to 256 and 274 to 276 /Ahd/2024 12 had already declared 7.5 per cent as gross profit, Tribunal was justified in restricting addition to 8 per cent of gross profit on impugned purchase

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

bogus purchases, since it was not disputed that purchases were actually made and payments for same were made through account payee cheque and further, assessee ITA No.254 to 256 and 274 to 276 /Ahd/2024 12 had already declared 7.5 per cent as gross profit, Tribunal was justified in restricting addition to 8 per cent of gross profit on impugned purchase

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

bogus purchases, since it was not disputed that purchases were actually made and payments for same were made through account payee cheque and further, assessee ITA No.254 to 256 and 274 to 276 /Ahd/2024 12 had already declared 7.5 per cent as gross profit, Tribunal was justified in restricting addition to 8 per cent of gross profit on impugned purchase

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

bogus\npurchases, since it was not disputed that purchases were actually made and\npayments for same were made through account payee cheque and further, assessee\nhad already declared 7.5 per cent as gross profit, Tribunal was justified in\nrestricting addition to 8 per cent of gross profit on impugned purchase transactions.\n6.7 On similar facts, Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai

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

bogus\npurchases, since it was not disputed that purchases were actually made and\npayments for same were made through account payee cheque and further, assessee\nhad already declared 7.5 per cent as gross profit, Tribunal was justified in\nrestricting addition to 8 per cent of gross profit on impugned purchase transactions.\n6.7 On similar facts, Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai

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

bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.62,08,914/-, and we accordingly direct deletion of the same. Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed. 19. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.891/Ahd/2018 is partly allowed. 20. Now we take up the assessee’s appeal in ITA No.892/Ahd/2018 for Asst.Year 2014-15. 21. The issue raised

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

bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.62,08,914/-, and we accordingly direct deletion of the same. Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed. 19. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.891/Ahd/2018 is partly allowed. 20. Now we take up the assessee’s appeal in ITA No.892/Ahd/2018 for Asst.Year 2014-15. 21. The issue raised

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR vs. RUDRA GLOBAL INFRA PRODUCTS LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

deducted the TDS on purchase of raw material and same is reflecting in TDS return filed by them means assessee have taken all the precautions and compliances well in place. 6.8 Likewise, in the case of Merry Sales Pvt. Ltd, the appellant purchased the MS scrap from this party to the tune

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

bogus purchases, and therefore, the assessment order is erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), wherein it was held as under: "When an Income Tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible

SADBHAV ENGINEERING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed\nand that of the Revenue are dismissed

deduction by the 1d.CIT(A) to\nthe tune of 16%, contending that the same be restricted to 8%. He\npointed out that the ITAT had considered it fair and just to restrict the\naddition to the extent of 12.5% of the bogus purchases

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

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

bogus transactions without supporting documentation. The CIT(A), however, allowed the purchases as genuine after reviewing evidence submitted by the assessee. Gift, Boni, and Chandla The AO disallowed these expenses as non- Expenses business in nature. The CIT(A) partially allowed the expenses as promotional in nature but confirmed a portion as non-business

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

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

bogus transactions without supporting documentation. The CIT(A), however, allowed the purchases as genuine after reviewing evidence submitted by the assessee. Gift, Boni, and Chandla The AO disallowed these expenses as non- Expenses business in nature. The CIT(A) partially allowed the expenses as promotional in nature but confirmed a portion as non-business

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

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

bogus transactions without supporting documentation. The CIT(A), however, allowed the purchases as genuine after reviewing evidence submitted by the assessee. Gift, Boni, and Chandla The AO disallowed these expenses as non- Expenses business in nature. The CIT(A) partially allowed the expenses as promotional in nature but confirmed a portion as non-business

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

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

bogus transactions without supporting documentation. The CIT(A), however, allowed the purchases as genuine after reviewing evidence submitted by the assessee. Gift, Boni, and Chandla The AO disallowed these expenses as non- Expenses business in nature. The CIT(A) partially allowed the expenses as promotional in nature but confirmed a portion as non-business

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

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

bogus transactions without supporting documentation. The CIT(A), however, allowed the purchases as genuine after reviewing evidence submitted by the assessee. Gift, Boni, and Chandla The AO disallowed these expenses as non- Expenses business in nature. The CIT(A) partially allowed the expenses as promotional in nature but confirmed a portion as non-business

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

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

bogus transactions without supporting documentation. The CIT(A), however, allowed the purchases as genuine after reviewing evidence submitted by the assessee. Gift, Boni, and Chandla The AO disallowed these expenses as non- Expenses business in nature. The CIT(A) partially allowed the expenses as promotional in nature but confirmed a portion as non-business

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

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

bogus transactions without supporting documentation. The CIT(A), however, allowed the purchases as genuine after reviewing evidence submitted by the assessee. Gift, Boni, and Chandla The AO disallowed these expenses as non- Expenses business in nature. The CIT(A) partially allowed the expenses as promotional in nature but confirmed a portion as non-business

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

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

bogus transactions without supporting documentation. The CIT(A), however, allowed the purchases as genuine after reviewing evidence submitted by the assessee. Gift, Boni, and Chandla The AO disallowed these expenses as non- Expenses business in nature. The CIT(A) partially allowed the expenses as promotional in nature but confirmed a portion as non-business

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

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

bogus transactions without supporting documentation. The CIT(A), however, allowed the purchases as genuine after reviewing evidence submitted by the assessee. Gift, Boni, and Chandla The AO disallowed these expenses as non- Expenses business in nature. The CIT(A) partially allowed the expenses as promotional in nature but confirmed a portion as non-business