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

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

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

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

SHRI PRAVIN SHIVLAL SHAH,,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3),, BARODA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

bogus, it will lead to an absurd situation since sales of products purchased from these parties have already been treated as income Thus the sales related to these purchases will be taxed entirely without any deduction

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

SHRI SANDEEPKUMAR S. CHANDAK,,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, S.K. WARD-1,, HIMATNAGAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

bogus then the assessee should be entitled for the deduction of the sales made against such purchases. All the purchases

DUBOND PRODUCTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

deduction of Rs.1.33 crores on account of purchases merely on the basis of suspicion because the sellers and the canvassing agents have not been produced before them. We find that the order of the Tribunal is well a reasoned order taking into account all the facts before concluding that the purchases of Rs.1.33 crores was not bogus

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DEVRAJ INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all three appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanisl.

deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act in respect of other income of Rs. 4,00,637/-. 4. That the ld. CIT((A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that bogus purchase

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DEVRAJ INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all three appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanisl.

deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act in respect of other income of Rs. 4,00,637/-. 4. That the ld. CIT((A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that bogus purchase

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

deduction under section 54F of the Act, the assessee submitted that AO has disallowed the claim by alleging bogus expenditure. As such the purchases

SHUKAN BUILDERS,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT(OSD), CIRCLE-9,, AHMEDABAD

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

deduction on account of such purchases, treating them as bogus, then will lead to double addition to the income of the assessee

THE DCIT(OSD), CIRCLE-9,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. SHUKAN BUILDERS,, AHMEDABAD

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

deduction on account of such purchases, treating them as bogus, then will lead to double addition to the income of the assessee

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. M/S. ULTRATECH TRANSMISSION PVT. LTD, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

purchase bills, wage registers etc. (iii) In case of majority of sub- contractors, the return of income was filed by the employees/owner of M/s Ultratech transmissions. (iv) The contractors filed income tax returns showing’s income under section 44AD of the Act, though they were supposed to maintain the books of accounts (v) The bank accounts

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. M/S. ULTRA TECH TRANSMISSION,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

purchase bills, wage registers etc. (iii) In case of majority of sub- contractors, the return of income was filed by the employees/owner of M/s Ultratech transmissions. (iv) The contractors filed income tax returns showing’s income under section 44AD of the Act, though they were supposed to maintain the books of accounts (v) The bank accounts