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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

133(6) or summons under Section 131, to verify the contents of the confirmations. It is beyond our comprehension to believe that the Revenue can treat a transaction as "bogus" solely on the basis of a preliminary report from wing when the assessee has produced a bank-verified trail of funds. As held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court

H K ISPAT PVT. LTD.,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

133(6) or summons under Section 131, to verify the contents of the confirmations. It is beyond our comprehension to believe that the Revenue can treat a transaction as "bogus" solely on the basis of a preliminary report from wing when the assessee has produced a bank-verified trail of funds. As held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

133(6) or summons under Section 131, to verify the contents of the confirmations. It is beyond our comprehension to believe that the Revenue can treat a transaction as "bogus" solely on the basis of a preliminary report from wing when the assessee has produced a bank-verified trail of funds. As held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court

HARSHADKUMAR HARGOVANDAS PATEL,KALOL vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

purchased only on 17.05.2011,\nclearly showing that the expenses could not relate to the said property.\nDespite repeated notices under sections 142(1) and 133(6), the assessee failed\nto furnish confirmations, income-tax details, or bank statements of the parties\nto whom payments were allegedly made. The assessee also did not produce\nany of those parties for verification

LEELA GREENSHIP RECYCLING PVT. LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes in terms of above directions

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

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

133(6) of the IT Act, 1961 to the parties however, no reply was submitted by any of the above parties for confirmation of purchases made by the assessee. Accordingly, AO disallowed 3 percent of total purchase considering it to be bogus purchase. 5.2 In response to the notice, the assessee submitted his reply on 24.12.2022, wherein the assessee submitted

SHITAL VIPULKUMAR DHOLAKIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 133(6) to these parties either remained un-\nresponded or were outrightly denied, thereby raising serious doubts about\nthe existence and identity of the suppliers. The DR emphasised that the\nmodus operandi adopted by the assessee i.e. purchasing from entities with\napparently non-existent or dubious registration status, amounts to a\nblatant contravention of the law and cannot

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

133(6) issued to seven parties returned unserved and in case of five other parties, no reply was received. The assessee has not furnished the copies of delivery challan and transport receipt. In view of above, it is held that the purchase remained unverified and the AO has correctly rejected books of account and added GP of 4% on sales

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD vs. KRISHNA CORPORATION, AHMEDABAD

The appeal are Allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 133(6) of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A), however, noted that the assessee had sufficiently discharged its onus of proving the genuineness of these creditors finding that the assessee had filed confirmation from all these parties and had also furnished bank statement reflecting payment made to them in the subsequent year. He accordingly, deleted the addition

ARVIND AMBALAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1) (OLD WARD-5(2)(2)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2017-18

purchase, issued notice under Section 133(6) of the Act to various parties and called upon the specific details. Some of the parties have not furnished any details or not furnished quantitative details which can be across-verified for the sale as mentioned on page no.8 of the Assessment Order. After taking cognisance of the assessee’s reply, the Assessing

ALANG STEEL RECYCLING PRIVATE LIMITED,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalalang Steel Recycling The Dy. Cit-1, Private Limited Vs. Circle-1, Ground Floor, Bhavnagar – 364 001 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 Abhijit, Sr.Dr 08.12.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026

section 133(6) of the Act remained unanswered. Considering the lack of corroborative evidence and relying upon the investigation inputs, the Assessing Officer treated the purchases of ₹77,61,745/- as bogus

ESPEE PHARMA CHEM PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year:2019-20

Section 148 of the Act. In the course of hearing Shri Ketan Shah, Ld. AR of the assessee, did not press these grounds. Hence, the ground number 1 to 3 as taken by the assessee are dismissed. 6. Ground number 4 to 7 pertain to addition of Rs. 42,95,000/- made on account of bogus purchase. Shri Ketan Shah

RBZ JEWELLERS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

bogus purchase even when the Ld. CIT(A) had accepted that appellant has submitted necessary evidence to substantiate such purchase and addition made in the assessment order was based upon incorrect notice u/s 133(6) issued to supplier from whom appellant has not made such purchases. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the entire addition. RBZ Jewellers

ILABAHEN VIRALKUMAR MEHTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The

Section 133(6). As per the statement received by the AO from M/s Jhaveri Securities Limited , the assessee has bought 23000 shares of Hemo Organics Limited during the year under consideration and sold 8000 shares during the year, making capital gain on Rs. 4512/- on the sale of 8000 shares, while 15000 shares continued to be held by the assessee

SHAILESHBHAI BHA vs. ANGBHAI CHAVDA,BHAVNAGARVS.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4) BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

bogus long term capital gains/bogus short term capital loss/bogus purchase loss etc. . Various incriminating documents were seized by Revenue during the course of search operations. Therefore, there was a reason to believe that the scrips of M/s. Divine Multimedia India Ltd., M/s. Diamant Infrastructure Ltd. and M/s VMS Industries Ltd. are not genuine. Shri Naresh Jain in his statement recorded

PATEL KENWOOD PRIVATE LIMITED,ANKLESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

133[6] notice dated 06-12-2019. However the Ld AO held that the Representative of M/s. Laxmi Enterprises did not furnish any relevant document, hence no statement was recorded u/s. 131 of the Act. Since M/s. Laxmi Enterprises is listed as a defaulter in the website of Gujarat Sales Tax and Commercial Tax Department, the purchases of Rs.43

PATEL KENWOOD PRIVATE LIMITED,ANKLESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

133[6] notice dated 06-12-2019. However the Ld AO held that the Representative of M/s. Laxmi Enterprises did not furnish any relevant document, hence no statement was recorded u/s. 131 of the Act. Since M/s. Laxmi Enterprises is listed as a defaulter in the website of Gujarat Sales Tax and Commercial Tax Department, the purchases of Rs.43