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

Section of AO’s Order 147 r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B 144B 144B Amount of Alleged Bogus 92,95,26,352/- 49,84,90,503/- 412,48,43,029/- Purchases added (Rs.) Gross Profit Rate Applied by AO 12.50% 12.50% 12.50% Addition Made

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

Section of AO’s Order 147 r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B 144B 144B Amount of Alleged Bogus 92,95,26,352/- 49,84,90,503/- 412,48,43,029/- Purchases added (Rs.) Gross Profit Rate Applied by AO 12.50% 12.50% 12.50% Addition Made

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

Section of AO’s Order 147 r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B 144B 144B Amount of Alleged Bogus 92,95,26,352/- 49,84,90,503/- 412,48,43,029/- Purchases added (Rs.) Gross Profit Rate Applied by AO 12.50% 12.50% 12.50% Addition Made

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

10,71,006/-) the claim of Assessee u/s 35(2AB) disregarding the submissions made by the Assessee. 4. Grievance raised by the assessee in the above ground is with respect to disallowance of claim of deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act amounting to Rs.54,53,724/-. The facts relating to the issue are that the assessee had claimed

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

10,71,006/-) the claim of Assessee u/s 35(2AB) disregarding the submissions made by the Assessee. 4. Grievance raised by the assessee in the above ground is with respect to disallowance of claim of deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act amounting to Rs.54,53,724/-. The facts relating to the issue are that the assessee had claimed

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 in accordance with law and thus revision under section. 263 is nothing but a change of opinion and hence order u/s. 263 is bad in law. 2. The directions given to AO in para 7, 7.1 and 8 of order under section 263 by the ld. Pr.CIT are already carried

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

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2022-23. 2. The sole grievance of the Revenue reads as under:- “Whether the CIT (A) has erred in facts and law in deleting the addition of Rs. 41,71,10,137/- being non-genuine and bogus purchases

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

purchase order,\netc.\nPara H of the order records that commissions were sent to\nDepartmental authorities in Mumbai to verify genuineness of the\nentities who in turn reported all of them to be bogus.\n28. Finally at Para I, the inference from all of the above is detailed\nmentioning all material found and relied upon for finding entities of\nK.C

INDIAN ION EXCHANGE & CHEMICALS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1) PREVIOUSLY WARD-2(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 132(4) of the Act, Shri Mahendra Shantilal Paltel had admitted that he did not supply the materials, that he was issuing only bogus bills and that he had no supporting documents in respect of transportation to parties, labour charges paid etc. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that there was no dispute to the fact that M/s. Siddh Syndicate

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

10 dealers like Mahadev Trading Co. However, this does not mean that actual purchase of goods has not taken place. The AR explained that the actual goods were indeed purchased, but possibly not directly from the supplier appearing in books and such accommodation bills merely provide documentary support for otherwise genuine purchase transactions where the physical movement of goods

BALDEVBHAI LALABHAI LUHAR,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(2), PRATYAKSHAR BHAVAN,AHMEDABAD

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

10,475/-. To verify genuineness of purchase, notices u/s 133(6) were issued to the parties to file confirmations, ledger account and other relevant details like bank statement, ITR, audit report and transportation details. In case of seven parties, the notices were returned back with remark "left" or "not known". No reply was received from the other five parties

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

Section 149 of the Act was not applicable in the present case. With regards to merits of the addition, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that mere copy of invoice/bill for the purchases and the payments through banking channel does not establish the genuineness of the purchases. He submitted that no supporting documents for transportation of goods, delivery challan, vehicle

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

Section 149 of the Act was not applicable in the present case. With regards to merits of the addition, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that mere copy of invoice/bill for the purchases and the payments through banking channel does not establish the genuineness of the purchases. He submitted that no supporting documents for transportation of goods, delivery challan, vehicle

LALITA RAMNIRANJAN AGARWAL,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri TR Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nAnd Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member\nITA No. 662/Ahd/2023\nAssessment Year 2015-16\nLalita Ramniranjan Agarwal,\nB-201, Sandal Wood\nResidency, Urmi Char Rasta\nProductivity Road,\nVadodara-390020\nPAN: AECPA0173J\n(Appellant)\nThe ITO,\nWard-1(2)(4),\nVadodara\nVs\n(Respondent)\nAssessee by: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, A.R.\nRevenue by: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr. D.R.\nDate of hearing\n: 24-02-2025\nDate of pronouncement : 28-02-2025\nORD

Section 10(38) of the Act has been allowed with the following\nobservations:\nI.T.A No. 662/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2015-16\nLalita Ramniranjan Agarwal vs. ITO\nPage No. 15\n“21. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us\nand carefully gone through the submissions, paper book and plethora of\njudgments referred and relied by both sides. Common

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

Bogus Purchases to inflate the purchases but they are real purchases accounted in my books of account. 5.4 Thus assessee has produced all the documents available with them as above but third party verification had not been possible in this case. Keeping in view of the natural justice with the assessee, GP to turnover ratio taken

DHARMESSH SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, PATAN

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2019-20 Dharmessh Shah The Ito, Ward-1 A-301, Vasantkunj Vs Patan. Garden Residency Sanjivan Road Paldi, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aelps 5203 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Kunal T. Sanghavi, Ar Assessee By : Shri Prathvij Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

purchases from M/s. Vishnu Gold as high-risk, allegedly involving bogus Input Tax Credit. The AO issued notice under section 148A(b), duly considered the assessee's response, and passed an order under section 148A(d), followed by issue of notice under section 148. The Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the validity of such reopening by relying on Explanation

ALANG STEEL RECYCLING PRIVATE LIMITED,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalalang Steel Recycling The Pr. Cit-1, Private Limited Vs. Ahmedabad – 380 015 Ground Floor, Shop No.G-1 Sukun-1, Bhilwara Circle Bhavnagar – 364 001 [ Pan: Aamca 4837 A ] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue Represented By : Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr 08.12.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026

purchases and, in respect of transactions aggregating to ₹77,61,745/-, treated the same as non-genuine and disallowed the entire amount under section 37 of the Act while framing the reassessment order. However, according to the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, the Assessing Officer failed to invoke the provisions of section 69C read with section 115BBE

ESPEE PHARMA CHEM PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year:2019-20

section 151A of the Act, thereby making the entire proceedings and resultant impugned orders void ab initio. Espee Pharma Chem Pvt Ltd vs.ITO, A.Y 2019-20 3 3. In confirming the addition made of Rs. 42,95,000/- towards bogus purchase u/s 69C by passing an order u/s 148 of the Act, without providing the approval granted

VINAL COAL PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 896/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Vimal Coal Private Limited, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. T. Hiranand Estate, Nr. Fruit Income-Tax, Market, Naroda Road, Naroda, Circle 4(1)(2), Ahmedabad-380025 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabcv 4259 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Sunil Maloo, Ca ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.08.2024 आदेश/O R D E R

10% of alleged bogus purchases amounting to INR 2,47,76,349/- notwithstanding the formal acceptance of the Assessee's books of accounts under Section