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

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

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

10 & 11] In the instant case, though it may appear that the purchases have been shown to have been made through 'V but supplied by some other agency, in absence of other additional facts noted by this Court gross ad hoc addition of 25 per cent may not be justified. In the instant case, the assessee could produce before

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

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

10 & 11] In the instant case, though it may appear that the purchases have been shown to have been made through 'V but supplied by some other agency, in absence of other additional facts noted by this Court gross ad hoc addition of 25 per cent may not be justified. In the instant case, the assessee could produce before

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

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

10 & 11] In the instant case, though it may appear that the purchases have been shown to have been made through 'V but supplied by some other agency, in absence of other additional facts noted by this Court gross ad hoc addition of 25 per cent may not be justified. In the instant case, the assessee could produce before

SHRI PRAVIN SHIVLAL SHAH,,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3),, BARODA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

section 69 of the I.T.Act, 1961." ITA Nos. 1379 & 1380/Ahd/2016 20 . A.Ys. 2010-11-2011-12 4. Against the addition of 12.5% of the total purchase, assessee preferred first statutory appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who held that the undisclosed income of the appellant should be assessed @ 10% of purchase shown to have been made by him from

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 16. Coming to the submissions made by the ld.counsel for the assessee, we note that, he had contended that no credence could be given to the statement of entry providers or for that matter, Shri Kamal Jhaveri for the reasons that – i. he had not named the assessee as one of the beneficiaries of the bogus bills

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 16. Coming to the submissions made by the ld.counsel for the assessee, we note that, he had contended that no credence could be given to the statement of entry providers or for that matter, Shri Kamal Jhaveri for the reasons that – i. he had not named the assessee as one of the beneficiaries of the bogus bills

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

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 recorded

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

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 recorded

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

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 recorded

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

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 recorded

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

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 recorded

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

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DEVRAJ INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all three appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanisl.

section uses the words “derived from” as against “attributable to”. The Ld. AO observed that the words “derived from” are much narrower than the words “attributable to” and the benefit of deduction is available in respect of the income of the first degree only. Placing reliance on Pandian Chemicals Ltd. 262 ITR 278 (SC) and Sterling Foods

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DEVRAJ INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all three appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanisl.

section uses the words “derived from” as against “attributable to”. The Ld. AO observed that the words “derived from” are much narrower than the words “attributable to” and the benefit of deduction is available in respect of the income of the first degree only. Placing reliance on Pandian Chemicals Ltd. 262 ITR 278 (SC) and Sterling Foods

SHRI SANDEEPKUMAR S. CHANDAK,,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, S.K. WARD-1,, HIMATNAGAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 133(6) of the Act on making the payment of the requisite fees. 5.8 The payment against the purchases was not made in any of the case during the year under consideration. As such the payment was made in the subsequent year. In view of the above and after considering the information received from the Maharashtra sales tax department

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. , BARODA

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

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

bogus purchases based on the information received from Department of Sales Tax, Maharashtra without considering the evidences and explanations provided by the Appellant and without giving the basis for such allegations and an opportunity to cross examine the defaulting parties to the Appellant. ITA No. 1462, 1463, 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2018 [Sun Pharma Laboratories

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

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

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

bogus purchases based on the information received from Department of Sales Tax, Maharashtra without considering the evidences and explanations provided by the Appellant and without giving the basis for such allegations and an opportunity to cross examine the defaulting parties to the Appellant. ITA No. 1462, 1463, 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2018 [Sun Pharma Laboratories