AARAV FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

bogus loss.” 22. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. From the perusal of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has given the details related to the purchase of shares and analyse the trade data along with the selling of the shares. But the Assessing Officer has not co-related

SAGAR RAJESH JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

bogus loss.” 22. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. From the perusal of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has given the details related to the purchase of shares and analyse the trade data along with the selling of the shares. But the Assessing Officer has not co-related

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

Assessing Officer (AO) reopened cases based on information about accommodation entry providers and bogus purchases, rejecting the assessee's books

NARMADA CONCAST PRIVATE LIMITED,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Assessing Officer, on verification of the details available on record, has noticed that there were bogus purchases. However, there is no assertion as regards on the basis of which material on record he has come to such conclusion. A perusal of the order rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner, shows that the reopening

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

bogus purchases and sales transactions, he pointed out that the purchase made from Overseas Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Anshul agencies, Faith Innovation, Lakeland Chemical (I) Ltd. In 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 13 have been sold to Anish Corporation, Western Trading Company & Climax Marketing Pvt Ltd. Similarly, for the purchases made from other concerns in other years, there were corresponding

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

bogus purchases and sales transactions, he pointed out that the purchase made from Overseas Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Anshul agencies, Faith Innovation, Lakeland Chemical (I) Ltd. In 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 13 have been sold to Anish Corporation, Western Trading Company & Climax Marketing Pvt Ltd. Similarly, for the purchases made from other concerns in other years, there were corresponding

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

bogus purchases and sales transactions, he pointed out that the purchase made from Overseas Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Anshul agencies, Faith Innovation, Lakeland Chemical (I) Ltd. In 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 13 have been sold to Anish Corporation, Western Trading Company & Climax Marketing Pvt Ltd. Similarly, for the purchases made from other concerns in other years, there were corresponding

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 from Shri Bhanwarlal Jain Group. However, assessee filed detailed evidence consisting of details of purchase, PAN and addresses of parties, purchase invoice, stock register, etc. On these facts, Hon’ble Gujrat High Court has upheld the findings of Tribunal in limiting addition in hands of assessee at the rate of 6 per cent of impugned purchases, taking note

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 from Shri Bhanwarlal Jain Group. However, assessee filed detailed evidence consisting of details of purchase, PAN and addresses of parties, purchase invoice, stock register, etc. On these facts, Hon’ble Gujrat High Court has upheld the findings of Tribunal in limiting addition in hands of assessee at the rate of 6 per cent of impugned purchases, taking note

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 from Shri Bhanwarlal Jain Group. However, assessee filed detailed evidence consisting of details of purchase, PAN and addresses of parties, purchase invoice, stock register, etc. On these facts, Hon’ble Gujrat High Court has upheld the findings of Tribunal in limiting addition in hands of assessee at the rate of 6 per cent of impugned purchases, taking note

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

reopening which is issued barely for making fishing inquiry, would not satisfy this requirement. 8. With this background, we may revert to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. Information from the Value Added Tax Department of Mumbai was placed for his consideration. This information contained list of allegedly bogus purchases

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

reopening which is issued barely for making fishing inquiry, would not satisfy this requirement. 8. With this background, we may revert to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. Information from the Value Added Tax Department of Mumbai was placed for his consideration. This information contained list of allegedly bogus purchases

KALYAN JEWELS PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Waseem Ahmed & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10 Kalyan Jewells P.Ltd. Ito, Ward-2(1)(2) 49, Super Mall Vs Ahmedabad. Nr.Lal Bungalow, Ahmedabad 380 015 Pan : Aacck 4717 B

bogus purchase. The assessee-company has also obtained accommodation entries of Rs.1,37,815/- during the Asstt.Year 2009-10 in the form of purchases from one of the benami, Rajendra Jain. Further information was also received from additional CIT(Inv.), Uni-1, Ahmedabad in respect of accommodation entries paid by the companies and controlled by Shri Pratik Shah wherein

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

reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act. We shall first discuss the Revenue’s ground of appeal. 7. Before us, the Ld. DR submitted that from the instant set of facts, it is very clear that it is a case of bogus sub- contracting expenses created by the assessee. He submitted that as per the statements which were

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

reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act. We shall first discuss the Revenue’s ground of appeal. 7. Before us, the Ld. DR submitted that from the instant set of facts, it is very clear that it is a case of bogus sub- contracting expenses created by the assessee. He submitted that as per the statements which were

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

reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act. We shall first discuss the Revenue’s ground of appeal. 7. Before us, the Ld. DR submitted that from the instant set of facts, it is very clear that it is a case of bogus sub- contracting expenses created by the assessee. He submitted that as per the statements which were

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

reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act. We shall first discuss the Revenue’s ground of appeal. 7. Before us, the Ld. DR submitted that from the instant set of facts, it is very clear that it is a case of bogus sub- contracting expenses created by the assessee. He submitted that as per the statements which were

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

reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act. We shall first discuss the Revenue’s ground of appeal. 7. Before us, the Ld. DR submitted that from the instant set of facts, it is very clear that it is a case of bogus sub- contracting expenses created by the assessee. He submitted that as per the statements which were