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

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

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

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

purchases from entities flagged as bogus suppliers. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the books of account under Section 145(3) and applied a 12.5% gross profit (GP) rate. The CIT(A) reduced this rate to 5% for AY 2018-19 and 6% for AY 2020-21 and 2021-22.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the full disallowance

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 disregarding the submissions of the Assessee. 9. As is evident from the perusal of the above ground the assessee is aggrieved by the confirmation of disallowance

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 disregarding the submissions of the Assessee. 9. As is evident from the perusal of the above ground the assessee is aggrieved by the confirmation of disallowance

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

bogus purchase of material and accordingly\nhad disallowed the entire purchases. The ld.CIT(A), however, had\nrestricted the disallowance to 25% of the 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

disallowance nor\nadmitted that the purchases were bogus. Rather, the assessee has\nconsistently maintained that the purchases were genuine and has\nproduced

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)

disallowance of alleged bogus purchases was restricted to 5% thereby confirmed the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) to 5% of the bogus

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VEJALPUR vs. L G CHOUDHARY, NARANPURA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes while the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

disallowance of purchases made by the assessee on account of the following: i. Purchase admitted to be bogus by the assessee

M/S. L. G. CHOUDHARY,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes while the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

disallowance of purchases made by the assessee on account of the following: i. Purchase admitted to be bogus by the assessee

RAJENDRAKUMAR CHHANALAL SHAH,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, PATAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

disallowed 3.92% of total purchase considering it to be bogus purchase. The Ld. CIT(A) reduced the same to 2% of the alleged

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

bogus purchase of four parties only to the extent of gross profit element embedded in such purchase cannot be held as correct. 10. In the case of Premkumar B. Rathi (59 taxmaznn.com 203) (Guj.), Hon’ble Gujarat High Court had upheld the disallowance

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

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

Bogus Purchases The AO disallowed certain purchases, considering them bogus transactions without supporting documentation. The CIT(A), however, allowed the purchases

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

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

Bogus Purchases The AO disallowed certain purchases, considering them bogus transactions without supporting documentation. The CIT(A), however, allowed the purchases

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

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

Bogus Purchases The AO disallowed certain purchases, considering them bogus transactions without supporting documentation. The CIT(A), however, allowed the purchases