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

VICKY 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

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

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

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 purchases from 12.5% to 5% or 6% without considering the facts of the case, and whether the AO's action of reopening the assessment

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

GUJARAT VAIBHAV PUBLICATIONS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reopened by issue of notice under section 148 of the Act on 13.02.2019. In the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer had treated the purchase of Rs.2,91,37,222/- made by the assessee from M/s. Vandana Raj Corporation as bogus

GUJARAT VAIBHAV PUBLICATIONS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reopened by issue of notice under section 148 of the Act on 13.02.2019. In the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer had treated the purchase of Rs.2,91,37,222/- made by the assessee from M/s. Vandana Raj Corporation as bogus

RUDRA GLOBAL INFRA PRODUCTS LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of reopening is without jurisdiction and in not permissible either in law or on facts. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in upholding the disallowance of alleged bogus purchases

JHAVERI TRADING AND INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2012-13

reopening of the assessment for assessment year 2012-13 was provided to the assessee vide letter dated 09-10-2019. The details furnished by the assessee was taken on record by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading of shares, securities, derivatives and commodities. As per information, the assessee company

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

Assessing Officer (A.O.) made an addition of Rs. 1,13,12,210/-, which constituted 12.5% of alleged non-genuine purchases amounting to Rs. 9,04,97,678/-. The case of the assessee was reopened based on information indicating that the assessee had purchased goods from M/s. Varia Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. though the assessee claimed that it returned the goods back

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\nallowed

reopening of the assessment by the AO was hit by\nthe first proviso to Section 147 of the Act as the same was done after four years\nfrom the end of the assessment year. He, therefore, has submitted that\nreopening of the assessment in this case was bad in law.\n7. The Ld. DR, however, has relied on the findings