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

bogus purchases, since it was not disputed that purchases were actually made and payments for same were made through account payee cheque and further, assessee ITA No.254 to 256 and 274 to 276 /Ahd/2024 12 had already declared 7.5 per cent as gross profit, Tribunal was justified in restricting addition to 8 per cent of gross profit on impugned purchase

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

bogus purchases, since it was not disputed that purchases were actually made and payments for same were made through account payee cheque and further, assessee ITA No.254 to 256 and 274 to 276 /Ahd/2024 12 had already declared 7.5 per cent as gross profit, Tribunal was justified in restricting addition to 8 per cent of gross profit on impugned purchase

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

bogus purchases, since it was not disputed that purchases were actually made and payments for same were made through account payee cheque and further, assessee ITA No.254 to 256 and 274 to 276 /Ahd/2024 12 had already declared 7.5 per cent as gross profit, Tribunal was justified in restricting addition to 8 per cent of gross profit on impugned purchase

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

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1(2), AHMEDABAD, 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

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

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

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

12 But we find that the AO completely ignored all the contentions made by the assessee as above pointing out why the information which devolved from the investigation conducted by the Department as also the inquiry conducted AO could not be utilized against the assessee to hold the purchases made to the tune of Rs.62,08,914/- as bogus

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

12 But we find that the AO completely ignored all the contentions made by the assessee as above pointing out why the information which devolved from the investigation conducted by the Department as also the inquiry conducted AO could not be utilized against the assessee to hold the purchases made to the tune of Rs.62,08,914/- as bogus

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

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

purchase\nexpenses.\n67. ISSUE NO.4 REGARDING TREATMENT OF ALLEGED BOGUS\nSUB-CONTRACT EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 69A AND 69C OF\nTHE ACT AND CHARGING THE SAME AT THE RATE SPECIFIED\nIN TERMS OF SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT.\n68. The next issue being taken for consideration is the\ntreatment of the alleged bogus sub-contract expenses as deemed\nincome

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 purchase at the rate of 15% which was reduced to 8% by the Ld. CIT(A). He further submitted that, considering the gross profit of 2.57% disclosed by the assessee, the estimation of profit @ 8% as upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) was reasonable. 10. We have considered the rival submissions. The contention of the assessee is that

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 purchase at the rate of 15% which was reduced to 8% by the Ld. CIT(A). He further submitted that, considering the gross profit of 2.57% disclosed by the assessee, the estimation of profit @ 8% as upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) was reasonable. 10. We have considered the rival submissions. The contention of the assessee is that

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

bogus and as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act, since the assessee utterly failed to establish the genuineness of such transactions during the reassessment proceedings. The DR emphasized that the proprietor of the said concern could not be traced during field inquiries and failed to respond to notices issued under section 133(6). Therefore, the very existence

M/S. ANAM PESTICIDES PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 145(3) of the Act and rejected the book results and estimated the net profit @ 12% of total turnover. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 3,07,35,264/- (after allowing the credit for net profit already disclosed by the assessee of Rs. 4,56,268/-) by estimating the net profit @ 12% of the total turnover

RAJENDRAKUMAR CHHANALAL SHAH,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, PATAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

12,61,68,630/-. 5. The Assessing Officer treated the purchases made from these two parties as bogus purchases on the ground that these two parties had not replied to the notices u/s 133(6) of the Act issued to them. The Assessing Officer, therefore, estimated 3.92% GP i.e. Rs. 56,08,545/- on purchase amount of Rs.12

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

12. In the result the ground no1 of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes. 13. The next ground raised by the assessee is that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs,54,85,000/- on account of bogus purchases. 14. The brief facts in relation to this ground of appeal are that during the course

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

sections 131/133(6) of the Act to 12 parties from whom the assessee had claimed to have made purchases. Based on the responses received and the lack of satisfactory evidences in most cases, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had failed to establish the genuineness of such purchases. While allowing purchases from two parties where confirmations and details were