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

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

section 131 and statement was recorded. The Assessment Officer came to the inference that purchases amounting to Rs. 1,68,48,663/- are bogus

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

U.B. COTTON PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2008-09 U.B. Cotton P.Ltd. Dcit, Cir.4(1)(1) Indian Globe Chamber Vs Ahmedabad. 7Th Floor, 142 Wh Marg, Fort Mumbai 400 001. Pan : Aaacu 5526 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Written Submissions Revenue By : Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/05/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/05/2022 आदेश/O R D E R

bogus purchase of Rs.29,97,477/- after examining three parties viz. 2 Ashirwad Broker, Lalitbhai Dalal and Madhav Broker and allow the assessee to cross-examine them. It is, therefore, the ld.AO issued a notice under section 142(1) of the Act on 8.8.2018 to call for the details of three parties. The assessee sought adjournment vide letter dated

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1659/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1689/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09 ) बनाम/ 1. Sun Pharmaceuticals 1. The Acit Industries Ltd. Cen.Cir-1 Vs. “Sparc” Tandalja Baroda – 20 2. The Acit 2. Sun Pharmaceu- Central Circle-1 Ticals Industries Baroda Ltd. Baroda. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs 3124K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri R.C. Panday, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 28/03/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/06/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Cross-Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–2, Vadodara [Cit(A) In Short] Vide Appeal No.Cab/(A)- 2/387/2014-15 Dated 31/03/2015 Arising In The Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 14/02/2014 Relevant To Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. Ita Nos.1659/Ahd/2015 (By Assessee) & Ita No.1689/Ahd/2015 (By Revenue) Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. Vs. Acit Asst.Year - 2008-09 2

bogus other than the statement. 18.7. It is also important to note that the statement furnished under section 131 of the Act dated 8-11-2011 was retracted by way of filing an affidavit dated 11-11-2011 immediately after 3 days. III. Whether the SUN BVI is a paper company i) There is no doubt that BVI was registered

ITO WARD-4(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. VALLEY COMTRADE PVT LTD ( EARLIER KNOWN AS JHAWAR COMTRADE PVT. LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddharatha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2034/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 I.T.O, M/S. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., Ward-4(1)(4), Vs. (Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Ahmedabad. Pvt. Ltd.,) C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli Bmw Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aadcs3553N & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 68/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 M/S. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O, (Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Vs. Ward-1(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd.,) Surat. C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli Bmw Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aadcs3553N

purchase of shares by Seema holding cannot be held as bogus merely on the basis that its name appearing in the list of Jama/Kharchi company maintained by DDIT(Inv) Kolkata. 13.13 Without prejudice to the above discussion with respect to all the investor companies, we note that under the provisions of section 68 of the Act as applicable

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. PANKAJ COTTON INDUSTRIES, PATAN

bogus purchases disallowance @ 25% would cover this latter figure as well. The CIT(A) lastly reverses Assessing Officer’s findings in part making section 68 addition of Rs. 32385600/- to the tune of Rs. 449304/- only as under: “In ground no.5 the appellant has disputed the addition of Rs.3,23,85,600 being unexplained cash credit. Perusal of para

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

131(1) of the Act denies to have entered into any actual agreement with the assessee for the purchase of the impugned property. As such, all the confirming parties admitted that they were paid commission of ₹1 lakh each by the assessee for using their name and bank account to manipulate the transactions. As such, whatever money was received

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. MOHAMMEDARIF IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

131 of the Act to those 34 parties from whom appellant purchased livestock as per addresses furnished by the assessee in order to verify the genuineness of the transaction and also to ascertain the fact that whether the livestock purchases were made from purchaser/shepherds in connection with applicability of Rule 6DDE(ii). Seven persons did not appear before

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. MOHAMMEDARIF IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

131 of the Act to those 34 parties from whom appellant purchased livestock as per addresses furnished by the assessee in order to verify the genuineness of the transaction and also to ascertain the fact that whether the livestock purchases were made from purchaser/shepherds in connection with applicability of Rule 6DDE(ii). Seven persons did not appear before

SHUKAN BUILDERS,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT(OSD), CIRCLE-9,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

bogus purchases. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. 17. The next issue arises by the assessee is that the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO for Rs.6,01,000/- on account of commission expenses. 18. The assessee during the year has claimed to have incurred commission expenses amounting

THE DCIT(OSD), CIRCLE-9,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. SHUKAN BUILDERS,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

bogus purchases. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. 17. The next issue arises by the assessee is that the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO for Rs.6,01,000/- on account of commission expenses. 18. The assessee during the year has claimed to have incurred commission expenses amounting

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

bogus purchases had been set aside in entirety by the Hon’ble ITAT for fresh adjudication and therefore the earlier relief granted by the CIT(A) stood merged with the order of the Tribunal. It was observed that the Assessing Officer had rightly re-examined the entire issue in accordance with the directions of the ITAT and hence the contention

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMISSIONER 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

bogus purchases had been set aside in entirety by the Hon’ble ITAT for fresh adjudication and therefore the earlier relief granted by the CIT(A) stood merged with the order of the Tribunal. It was observed that the Assessing Officer had rightly re-examined the entire issue in accordance with the directions of the ITAT and hence the contention

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

bogus purchases had been set aside in entirety by the Hon’ble ITAT for fresh adjudication and therefore the earlier relief granted by the CIT(A) stood merged with the order of the Tribunal. It was observed that the Assessing Officer had rightly re-examined the entire issue in accordance with the directions of the ITAT and hence the contention

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

bogus purchases had been set aside in entirety by the Hon’ble ITAT for fresh adjudication and therefore the earlier relief granted by the CIT(A) stood merged with the order of the Tribunal. It was observed that the Assessing Officer had rightly re-examined the entire issue in accordance with the directions of the ITAT and hence the contention

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 131. The findings for A.Y. 2008-09 were grouped as follows: • Non-verifiable Vendors: Of 102 vendors, only 46 were presented with partial documentation, leaving 56 subcontractors (listed in Annexure C-1) as non-verifiable. These vendors accounted for substantial subcontracting costs amounting to Rs.20.69 crores. • Non-filers and PAN Issues: Of 411 vendors, 92 failed to file income

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 131. The findings for A.Y. 2008-09 were grouped as follows: • Non-verifiable Vendors: Of 102 vendors, only 46 were presented with partial documentation, leaving 56 subcontractors (listed in Annexure C-1) as non-verifiable. These vendors accounted for substantial subcontracting costs amounting to Rs.20.69 crores. • Non-filers and PAN Issues: Of 411 vendors, 92 failed to file income

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 131. The findings for A.Y. 2008-09 were grouped as follows: • Non-verifiable Vendors: Of 102 vendors, only 46 were presented with partial documentation, leaving 56 subcontractors (listed in Annexure C-1) as non-verifiable. These vendors accounted for substantial subcontracting costs amounting to Rs.20.69 crores. • Non-filers and PAN Issues: Of 411 vendors, 92 failed to file income