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

34,650/- (Rs.) Date of AO’s Order 23.03.2023 27.09.2022 23.12.2022 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 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 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

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

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

10(2A) defines such income as the share of profit of a partner from the partnership firm, the language is clear and unambiguous and needs no other insertion or deletion. The remuneration to partner may have the color of appropriation of profit of a partnership firm as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts

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

10(2A) defines such income as the share of profit of a partner from the partnership firm, the language is clear and unambiguous and needs no other insertion or deletion. The remuneration to partner may have the color of appropriation of profit of a partnership firm as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE ASST. 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

10(2A) defines such income as the share of profit of a partner from the partnership firm, the language is clear and unambiguous and needs no other insertion or deletion. The remuneration to partner may have the color of appropriation of profit of a partnership firm as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts

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

10(2A) defines such income as the share of profit of a partner from the partnership firm, the language is clear and unambiguous and needs no other insertion or deletion. The remuneration to partner may have the color of appropriation of profit of a partnership firm as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts

DINESHCHANDRA LADDHA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO WARD 1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the asessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under: “1. In his order dated 21/03/2024, the Ld. AO has erred in law by making an addition of Rs. 76,34,197 u/s 690 rws 115BBE

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. MOHAMMEDARIF IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

bogus is essentially a question of fact. The Tribunal having examined the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the assessee did purchase the cloth and sell the finished goods. In that view of the matter, as natural corollary, not the entire amount covered under such purchase, but the profit element embedded therein would be subject to tax. This

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. MOHAMMEDARIF IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

bogus is essentially a question of fact. The Tribunal having examined the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the assessee did purchase the cloth and sell the finished goods. In that view of the matter, as natural corollary, not the entire amount covered under such purchase, but the profit element embedded therein would be subject to tax. This

DCIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ALPESHKUMAR C.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1908/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive In Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. Pan: Aeapp9489G

purchase of the properties should be made taxable under the head capital gain and accordingly the assessee is entitled for the exemption under section 54F of the Act. Thus, it seems to us by this finding of the ITAT (us), the grievance of the revenue is answered against it. 15.13 However, for the completeness of the case, we are inclined

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

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

10 1746/Ahd/2016 2011- ITA 18,34,735 Assessee 3.1 12 1746/Ahd/2016 Penalty for Leave 2007- ITA 25,59,312 Assessee 1 Encashment 08 2603/Ahd/2013 2008- ITA 28,51,368 Assessee 1 09 2604/Ahd/2013 Disallowance under 2008- ITA 2,07,727 Assessee 1 Section 14A 09 2036/Ahd/2011 2011- ITA 82,86,127 Revenue 4 12 248/Ahd/2016 ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other