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

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 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

13. On the other hand, the learned AR before us filed two sets of paper book running from pages 1 to 167 and 1 to 114 and contended that the property in dispute was actually transferred at ₹ 1,10,77,526 +15 lakhs of rupees. Therefore no addition of whatsoever can be made in the hands of the assessee

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

13. In the case of Vijay Trading Co. vs. Income-tax Officer [2016] 76 taxmann.com 366 (Gujarat) / [2016] 388 ITR 377 (Gujarat), the Gujarat High Court held that in respect of bogus purchases, only profit element embedded therein would be subjected to tax. In this case, the Gujarat High Court restricted the disallowance to 25% of the cost of such

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

purchase, there is no contemporaneous\nsettlement agreement, confirmation from the counter-party, or other\nprimary document on record evidencing the nature and basis of the\nsettlement. This absence of supporting documentation is unusual,\nparticularly given the significance of the amount and the nature of the\nclaim.\n65. It is also noted that out of the total

THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(5),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. SHUBH CONSTRUCTION,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

13 Ahmedabad Vs Second Floor, Agrawal (Appellant) Mall, Opp: Bhagwat Vidyapith, S.G. Highway, Sola, Ahmedabad PAN:ABTFS7198F (Respondent) Revenue by: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Assessee by: None Date of hearing : 02-07-2018 Date of pronouncement : 17-09-2018 आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This Revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2012-13, arises from order

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

bogus suppliers. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice under section 148 and framed the\nreassessment under section 143(3) r.w.s.147. On finding that the assessee had not satisfactorily discharged the onus of establishing the genuineness of purchases and the identity of the suppliers, the AO invoked the provisions of section 145(3), rejected the books of account, and applied

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

Section Bhagat Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT Asst.Year –2016-17 - 3– 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was passed on March 27, 2022, determining the assessed income at Rs. 1,13,02,151/-. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) made an addition of Rs. 1,13,12,210/-, which constituted 12.5% of alleged non-genuine purchases amounting

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

13,250/- to be capital in nature despite the same been incurred for meeting routine commercial necessities like maintaining operational efficacies, asset replacements in the ordinary course of business, without giving rise to any benefit in the capital field, indicating that the expenditure was revenue in nature and hence, eligible for deduction under section 37(1). 4.2. Without prejudice

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

13,250/- to be capital in nature despite the same been incurred for meeting routine commercial necessities like maintaining operational efficacies, asset replacements in the ordinary course of business, without giving rise to any benefit in the capital field, indicating that the expenditure was revenue in nature and hence, eligible for deduction under section 37(1). 4.2. Without prejudice

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

13,250/- to be capital in nature despite the same been incurred for meeting routine commercial necessities like maintaining operational efficacies, asset replacements in the ordinary course of business, without giving rise to any benefit in the capital field, indicating that the expenditure was revenue in nature and hence, eligible for deduction under section 37(1). 4.2. Without prejudice

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

13,250/- to be capital in nature despite the same been incurred for meeting routine commercial necessities like maintaining operational efficacies, asset replacements in the ordinary course of business, without giving rise to any benefit in the capital field, indicating that the expenditure was revenue in nature and hence, eligible for deduction under section 37(1). 4.2. Without prejudice

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 suppliers. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice under section 148 and framed the ITA No.254 to 256 and 274 to 276 /Ahd/2024 3 reassessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147. On finding that the assessee had not satisfactorily discharged the onus of establishing the genuineness of purchases and the identity of the suppliers, the AO invoked the provisions

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 suppliers. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice under section 148 and framed the ITA No.254 to 256 and 274 to 276 /Ahd/2024 3 reassessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147. On finding that the assessee had not satisfactorily discharged the onus of establishing the genuineness of purchases and the identity of the suppliers, the AO invoked the provisions

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 suppliers. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice under section 148 and framed the ITA No.254 to 256 and 274 to 276 /Ahd/2024 3 reassessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147. On finding that the assessee had not satisfactorily discharged the onus of establishing the genuineness of purchases and the identity of the suppliers, the AO invoked the provisions

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

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

13 I.T.A No. 1477/Ahd/17 & 1826/Ahd/2016 & Ors. A.Y. 2011-12 & Ors. Page No explained that there is no bill issued by purchase parties. The Director of the assessee company was summoned under section 131 and statement was recorded. The Assessment Officer came to the inference that purchases amounting to Rs. 1,68,48,663/- are bogus

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

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

13 I.T.A No. 1477/Ahd/17 & 1826/Ahd/2016 & Ors. A.Y. 2011-12 & Ors. Page No explained that there is no bill issued by purchase parties. The Director of the assessee company was summoned under section 131 and statement was recorded. The Assessment Officer came to the inference that purchases amounting to Rs. 1,68,48,663/- are bogus