SHRI BHUPENDRA S. CHOKSHI,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1 (2), , VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year : 2007-08 Shri Bhupendra S. Chokshi Dcit, Cir.1(2) Prop: S. Kanjibhai Jewellers Vs Vadodara. Sb-35-36, Siddarth Complex Rc Dutt Road Vadodara 390 005 Pan : Abfpc 5333C

purchases found to bogus had necessarily to be disallowed completely, and there was no scope for restricting the disallowance ITA No.1854

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. PANKAJ COTTON INDUSTRIES, PATAN

disallowing bogus purchases of Rs. 25821773/- in case of M/s Vinayak Trading, similar purchases of Rs. 3041509/- pertaining to M/s Devi

THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT TERCE LABORATORIES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

purchases found bogus and therefore the reliance placed by the Ld.CIT(A) while restricting the disallowance of bogus sales promotion

THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT TERCE LABORATORIES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

purchases found bogus and therefore the reliance placed by the Ld.CIT(A) while restricting the disallowance of bogus sales promotion

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT TERCE LABORATORIES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

purchases found bogus and therefore the reliance placed by the Ld.CIT(A) while restricting the disallowance of bogus sales promotion

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

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 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 transactions.\n6.7 On similar facts, Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai

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

purchases, there cannot be any corresponding sales. Hence, the very basis of disallowance as bogus purchases was fundamentally flawed. The AR further

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

disallowance of bogus payment to sub-contractors, without appreciating that the so called payments were made by the assessee company to the sub-contractors only after presentation of bills but these sub-contractors were not having such financial capacity to make payment/advances to large number of labourers and material purchases

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

disallowance of bogus payment to sub-contractors, without appreciating that the so called payments were made by the assessee company to the sub-contractors only after presentation of bills but these sub-contractors were not having such financial capacity to make payment/advances to large number of labourers and material purchases

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

disallowance of bogus payment to sub-contractors, without appreciating that the so called payments were made by the assessee company to the sub-contractors only after presentation of bills but these sub-contractors were not having such financial capacity to make payment/advances to large number of labourers and material purchases

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

disallowance of bogus payment to sub-contractors, without appreciating that the so called payments were made by the assessee company to the sub-contractors only after presentation of bills but these sub-contractors were not having such financial capacity to make payment/advances to large number of labourers and material purchases

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

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

disallowance of bogus payment to sub-contractors, without appreciating that the so called payments were made by the assessee company to the sub-contractors only after presentation of bills but these sub-contractors were not having such financial capacity to make payment/advances to large number of labourers and material purchases

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

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2248 & 2249/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12)

disallowance made by the Ld. Assessing Officer. On alleged bogus purchases of Rs.63,44,326/- by treating the purchases made

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

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2248 & 2249/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12)

disallowance made by the Ld. Assessing Officer. On alleged bogus purchases of Rs.63,44,326/- by treating the purchases made

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

THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(5),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. SHUBH CONSTRUCTION,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bogus purchase—Assessee was engaged in business of trading in finished fabrics—AO held that certain purchases were unexplained and disallowed

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

disallowance of purchases is not sustainable when sales are accepted and stock is undisturbed, and that the GP rate should be industry-consistent.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "147", "145(3)", "250", "270A", "234A", "234B", "234C", "234D" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) was justified in restricting the addition made by the AO on account of alleged bogus