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

10. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Simit P. Sheth [2013] 38 taxmann.com 385 (Gujarat) / [2013] 219 Taxman 85 (Gujarat) (Mag.) / [2013] 356 ITR 451 (Gujarat), the assessee was engaged in business of trading in steel on wholesale basis. The Assessing Officer having found that some of Rudra Global Infra Products Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Year

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI MAHESH SOMABHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 10(38). The Assessing officer denied claim and made certain additions into assessee's income on the ground that said gains were earned through bogus penny stock transactions and companies to whom sold shares belonged were bogus in nature. The Tribunal observing that assessee by submitting records of purchase

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. BHAVESHKUMAR GIRISHBHAI BHANDARI, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

Appeal is allowed in ITA 978/Ahd/2025 and ITA\n978/Ahd/2025 as well

section 10(38) of the Act. The AO asked the\nassessee to explain why the LTCG should not be treated as bogus. In\nresponse, the assessee filed a reply dated 13.03.2023 and subsequently\nanother reply on 16.03.2023, contending that the notice was short-timed and\nthat he had already furnished all relevant documents such as purchase

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

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

38 taxmann.com 402 (Gujarat) "Revenue is in appeal against the judgment and order of the Tribunal dated 10.02.2012. Following question has been raised for our consideration: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in restricting the disallowance to the extent of 12.5% of the addition on account of bogus purchase

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

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

38 taxmann.com 402 (Gujarat) "Revenue is in appeal against the judgment and order of the Tribunal dated 10.02.2012. Following question has been raised for our consideration: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in restricting the disallowance to the extent of 12.5% of the addition on account of bogus purchase

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

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

38 taxmann.com 402 (Gujarat) "Revenue is in appeal against the judgment and order of the Tribunal dated 10.02.2012. Following question has been raised for our consideration: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in restricting the disallowance to the extent of 12.5% of the addition on account of bogus purchase

ALPA UDAYKUMAR SHAH,,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2),, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Memebr

Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. The assessing officer held that the aforesaid transactions of purchase of" two penny stock shares for Rs.60,000/. the merger of the companies with a new company and the sale of the shares for Rs.11,58,930/- fell within the ambit of adventure in the nature of trade and the assessee

KISHORI PANKAJ AGARWAL,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , VADODARA, GUJARAT

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38) of the Act has been allowed with the following observations: “21. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through the submissions, paper book and plethora of judgments referred and relied by both sides. ITA No. 623/Ahd/2023 [Kishori Pankaj Agarwal vs. ITO] A.Y. 2015-16 - 12 – Common issue raised

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

38) thereof) or [***] section 11 or section 12 apply, if any such amount is credited to the [statement of profit and loss]; or ITA No. 1462, 1463, 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2018 [Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd.] A.Y. 2011-12 & 2013-14 - 11 - 113. And section 10(2A) of the Act says that in the case of a person being a partner

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

38) thereof) or [***] section 11 or section 12 apply, if any such amount is credited to the [statement of profit and loss]; or ITA No. 1462, 1463, 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2018 [Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd.] A.Y. 2011-12 & 2013-14 - 11 - 113. And section 10(2A) of the Act says that in the case of a person being a partner

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

38) thereof) or [***] section 11 or section 12 apply, if any such amount is credited to the [statement of profit and loss]; or ITA No. 1462, 1463, 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2018 [Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd.] A.Y. 2011-12 & 2013-14 - 11 - 113. And section 10(2A) of the Act says that in the case of a person being a partner

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

38) thereof) or [***] section 11 or section 12 apply, if any such amount is credited to the [statement of profit and loss]; or ITA No. 1462, 1463, 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2018 [Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd.] A.Y. 2011-12 & 2013-14 - 11 - 113. And section 10(2A) of the Act says that in the case of a person being a partner

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. GIRISHKUMAR AMRATLAL BHANDARI HUF, HIMATNAGAR, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed and the order of\nthe Assessing Officer is restored

section 10(38) of the Act. The AO asked the\nassessee to explain why the LTCG should not be treated as bogus. In\nresponse, the assessee filed a reply dated 13.03.2023 and subsequently\nanother reply on 16.03.2023, contending that the notice was short-timed and\nthat he had already furnished all relevant documents such as purchase

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. BHAVESHKUMAR GIRISHBHAI BHANDARI, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed and the order of\nthe Assessing Officer is restored

section 10(38) of the Act. The AO asked the\nassessee to explain why the LTCG should not be treated as bogus. In\nresponse, the assessee filed a reply dated 13.03.2023 and subsequently\nanother reply on 16.03.2023, contending that the notice was short-timed and\nthat he had already furnished all relevant documents such as purchase

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

10% of bogus purchases. In the case of Jagdish H Patel [2017] 84 taxmann.com 259 (Gujarat), the Gujarat High Court held that where AO having found that during year assessee had made bogus purchases of certain amount added said amount to his income and Tribunal having found that assessee's GP for year under consideration was 7 per cent, adopted

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

10% of bogus purchases. In the case of Jagdish H Patel [2017] 84 taxmann.com 259 (Gujarat), the Gujarat High Court held that where AO having found that during year assessee had made bogus purchases of certain amount added said amount to his income and Tribunal having found that assessee's GP for year under consideration was 7 per cent, adopted

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

10% of bogus purchases. In the case of Jagdish H Patel [2017] 84 taxmann.com 259 (Gujarat), the Gujarat High Court held that where AO having found that during year assessee had made bogus purchases of certain amount added said amount to his income and Tribunal having found that assessee's GP for year under consideration was 7 per cent, adopted

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

10% of bogus purchases. In the case of Jagdish H Patel [2017] 84 taxmann.com 259 (Gujarat), the Gujarat High Court held that where AO having found that during year assessee had made bogus purchases of certain amount added said amount to his income and Tribunal having found that assessee's GP for year under consideration was 7 per cent, adopted

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

10% of bogus purchases. In the case of Jagdish H Patel [2017] 84 taxmann.com 259 (Gujarat), the Gujarat High Court held that where AO having found that during year assessee had made bogus purchases of certain amount added said amount to his income and Tribunal having found that assessee's GP for year under consideration was 7 per cent, adopted