PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

bogus corpus donations based on incriminating documents and extrapolating the available data. The AO disallowed exemptions under Sections 11 and 12, treating the income as normal business income due to violations of the trust's objectives. The Ld.CIT(A) partially upheld the AO's additions but allowed the exemptions under Sections 11 and 12, concluding there was no apparent violation

PARUL UNIVERSITY,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT,EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

bogus corpus donations based on incriminating documents and extrapolating the available data. The AO disallowed exemptions under Sections 11 and 12, treating the income as normal business income due to violations of the trust's objectives. The Ld.CIT(A) partially upheld the AO's additions but allowed the exemptions under Sections 11 and 12, concluding there was no apparent violation

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST, , AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

bogus corpus donations based on incriminating documents and extrapolating the available data. The AO disallowed exemptions under Sections 11 and 12, treating the income as normal business income due to violations of the trust's objectives. The Ld.CIT(A) partially upheld the AO's additions but allowed the exemptions under Sections 11 and 12, concluding there was no apparent violation

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

11. In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Surya Impex [2023] 148 taxmann.com 154 (Gujarat) / [2023] 291 Taxman 591 (Gujarat) / [2023] 451 ITR 395 (Gujarat), the Gujarat High Court held that where AO received report from Investigation Wing that assessee-firm received accommodation entries in form of bogus purchases from one J group and made

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

section 145(3) and applied a GP rate of 12.5%. The CIT(A), while affirming the rejection of books, accepted the assessee's contention that the GP rate of 12.5% was on the higher side, and therefore scaled it down to 6% and deleted the balance.\n6. The tabulated details of the above assessments are as follows:\nParticulars

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 by AO (Rs.) 11

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 by AO (Rs.) 11

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 by AO (Rs.) 11

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\nby the assessee, stand dismissed

purchases\nfrom parties whose existence or business activity could not be\nsubstantiated. The AO once again rejected the books of account\nunder section 145(3) and applied a GP rate of 12.5%. The CIT(A),\nwhile affirming the rejection of books, accepted the assessee's\ncontention that the GP rate of 12.5% was on the higher side, and\ntherefore scaled

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\nby the assessee, stand dismissed

purchases\nfrom parties whose existence or business activity could not be\nsubstantiated. The AO once again rejected the books of account\nunder section 145(3) and applied a GP rate of 12.5%. The CIT(A),\nwhile affirming the rejection of books, accepted the assessee's\ncontention that the GP rate of 12.5% was on the higher side, and\ntherefore scaled

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

11 ii. that even the name of the concerns, which entry provider had mentioned as providing bogus bills was not the same as that whose bills had been treated by the AO as bogus. The assessee had stated that all four parties listed by the AO, as having provided bogus bills to the assessee i.e. Royal Traders, Jay Traders, Shubham

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

11 ii. that even the name of the concerns, which entry provider had mentioned as providing bogus bills was not the same as that whose bills had been treated by the AO as bogus. The assessee had stated that all four parties listed by the AO, as having provided bogus bills to the assessee i.e. Royal Traders, Jay Traders, Shubham

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

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

bogus and 15% of the purchases was considered as income of the assessee and accordingly an addition of Rs.43,70,583/- was made. No transaction was found made with the other party M/s. A.M. Enterprise during the year. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act on 27.12.2019 at total income of Rs.42

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

bogus and 15% of the purchases was considered as income of the assessee and accordingly an addition of Rs.43,70,583/- was made. No transaction was found made with the other party M/s. A.M. Enterprise during the year. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act on 27.12.2019 at total income of Rs.42

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

11, Ahmedabad all dated 04.08.2021 passed under\nsection 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act\" for short) for the\n assessment years 2012-13 to 2018-19.\n2. The present appeals, it was stated, arose on account of the same\ncause of action i.e. search action undertaken on the assessee in terms\nof section

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

11. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (DR) vehemently supported the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. The DR submitted that the Assessing Officer had rightly treated the entire purchases amounting to Rs. 1,40,03,670/- made from M/s. Mahadev Trading Co. as bogus and as unexplained expenditure under section

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

11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We observe that the assessee had not filed cash book in respect of the above transaction. The assessee had filed copy of cash book of M/s.Bagya Gold Cast Pvt Ltd. for the first time before the Tribunal for its consideration. However, the said cash book