MADHAV COPPER LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

section 145(3) and applied a GP rate of 12.5%, resulting in substantial additions. The CIT(A), however, granted partial relief by restricting the GP rate to 6%, which has been challenged in cross appeals. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that it is engaged in the business of manufacturing copper and copper-based products and had made purchases

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

100 per cent addition with respect to said purchases, Tribunal was justified in limiting addition in respect of bogus purchases at the rate of 6 per cent of total purchases considering only income component of disputed transaction. 6.5 Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs Tirupati Earth Neerprima JV (2023) (154 taxmann.com 197) (Bombay) where

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

100 per cent addition with respect to said purchases, Tribunal was justified in limiting addition in respect of bogus purchases at the rate of 6 per cent of total purchases considering only income component of disputed transaction. 6.5 Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs Tirupati Earth Neerprima JV (2023) (154 taxmann.com 197) (Bombay) where

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

100 per cent addition with respect to said purchases, Tribunal was justified in limiting addition in respect of bogus purchases at the rate of 6 per cent of total purchases considering only income component of disputed transaction. 6.5 Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs Tirupati Earth Neerprima JV (2023) (154 taxmann.com 197) (Bombay) where

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 148 of the Act was issued on 22.03.2019. In the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.92,20,100/- on account of purchases made from M/s. Siddh Syndicate which were held as bogus

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

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

100% disallowance, the question was admitted by the Hon’ble High Court for consideration. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N.K. Proteins Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2017] 250 taxmann.com 22 (SC) and of the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Pratibha Structural Ltd. Vs. DCIT Central Circle

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

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

100% disallowance, the question was admitted by the Hon’ble High Court for consideration. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N.K. Proteins Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2017] 250 taxmann.com 22 (SC) and of the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Pratibha Structural Ltd. Vs. DCIT Central Circle

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

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

100% disallowance, the question was admitted by the Hon’ble High Court for consideration. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N.K. Proteins Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2017] 250 taxmann.com 22 (SC) and of the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Pratibha Structural Ltd. Vs. DCIT Central Circle

SAKET M JAINI(HUF),AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-5, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 579/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Saket M. Jain (Huf), The Pr. Commissioner Of 403, 3Rd Eye Two, Vs. Income Tax-2, Nr. Joyalukkas Show Room, Ahmedabad. Opp. Parimal Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad.

bogus, the source of credits shown in the books of account/bank account utilized for the purchase should have been treated unexplained credits u/s.68 of the Act as the source was not explained and substantiated by the assessee and hence there is underassessment of income of Rs.3,92,59,500/-. 4. The Learned Comm. of Income Tax, Ahmedabad -5 has erred

SHRI KIRTIKUMAR VASANTBHAI THAKKAR,,PATAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, PATAN

In the result, both the grounds of the appeal of the assessee are dismissed

section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, learned CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining additions of Rs. 5,09,032 out of I.T.A No. 3042/Ahd/2014

SHRI KIRTIKUMAR VASANTBHAI THAKKAR,,PATAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, PATAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 271(1)(c) is not applicable when additions are made on estimate basis without any cogent material or findings on record that assessee concealed the income or provided inaccurate particulars of income.”\ All the above mentioned three grounds of appeal are interconnected to the same issue therefore they are adjudicated together as below. 3. In this case, return

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

100 Ft. Road, Vs. Ahmedabad – 380 009. Anandnagar-Prahladnagar (Gujarat). Road, [PAN – AACCG 1338 G] Ahmedabad – 380 015. (Gujarat). (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate Revenue by Shri Rajiv Garg, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 26.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 16.12.2025 O R D E R PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These two appeals are filed

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

100 Ft. Road, Vs. Ahmedabad – 380 009. Anandnagar-Prahladnagar (Gujarat). Road, [PAN – AACCG 1338 G] Ahmedabad – 380 015. (Gujarat). (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate Revenue by Shri Rajiv Garg, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 26.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 16.12.2025 O R D E R PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These two appeals are filed

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

bogus purchases during the reassessment proceedings and disallowed 100% of the purchases amounting to ₹77,61,745/- . The Principal Commissioner has not disputed the quantum of disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. The sole basis for invoking section

MARUTI METAL INDUSTRIES,,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-1,, BHAVNAGAR

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

Section 69C of the I.T. Act and the AO's observation about the purchases held to be bogus from Jay Ambe Metal Corporation, Surat is correct and justified. Thus, the ground of appeal is dismissed.” However, we do not find justification in the decision of the ld. CIT(A) in adding the whole amount of the purchases

SHRI HARSHAD JASWANTLAL SONI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT.,A'BAD RANGE-2,, AHMEDABAD

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

100% disallowance of purchases were confirmed are those in which quantity tally of goods purchased and sold were not there. In the absence of quantity tally, it cannot be said that assessee purchased goods from some other parties even if the parties disclosed were found to be bogus or not traceable. In the case of appellant, undoubtedly purchased quantity

M/S. UNIQUE METROPOLIS,,AHMEDABAD vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,RANGE-9,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

bogus purchases calculated at 12.5% of the purchases which is excessive when no such disallowance is called. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee reiterated that assessee had provided all details and evidences and vide reply dated 24-02- 2014, copy of PAN card of parties, confirmation of ledger account duly signed by parties, copies of invoices and delivery challan

THE JT. CIT, RANGE-9,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. UNIQUE METROPOILS,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

bogus purchases calculated at 12.5% of the purchases which is excessive when no such disallowance is called. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee reiterated that assessee had provided all details and evidences and vide reply dated 24-02- 2014, copy of PAN card of parties, confirmation of ledger account duly signed by parties, copies of invoices and delivery challan

M/S. G.H. VIJAPURA,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY.CIT, SABARKANTHA CIRCLE,, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2699/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 1St M/S.G.H. Vijapura, Vs. Dcit, Sabarkantha Circle Floor, Aml Centre Himatnagar. Mahakali Caves Road Andher, Mumbai 93. Pan : Aabfg 3656 M

section 148 of the Act. 8. The second plea of the ld.counsel for the assessee is that only element of profit ought to be assessed from the alleged bogus purchase. In other words, right from the AO upto the ITAT, it has been submitted that 0.5% or any other amounts ought to be assessed as income of the assessee against