THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ASHOKKUMAR MOHANLAL JAIN,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1207/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Ashok Mohanlal Jain, I.T.O, Prop Of Parshwanth Enterprise, Vs. Ward-1(3)(1), S/3, Sujata Flats, Ahmedabad. Camp Road, Sahibaug, Ahmedabad-380004. Pan: Aczpj7617B

purchase register and other supporting documents. But assessee failed to produce the same. Likewise, AO issued notices under section 133(6) to the parties whose details of PAN and address were available. However, no satisfactory reply received and in some cases notices return as unserved. Thus the AO in absence of the requisite evidences and information held the sundry creditors

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

6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in making addition of the alleged bogus purchases without providing the information relied upon and opportunity of cross examination. 7. Alternatively and without prejudice, the disallowance of alleged bogus purchases shall be restricted to the element of profit embedded therein

SHRI SANDEEPKUMAR S. CHANDAK,,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, S.K. WARD-1,, HIMATNAGAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 133(6) of the Act along with the details as sought by one of the transporter. 5.3 The assessee also claimed that the sales cannot be made without having the purchases. Therefore, there is no question of treating the purchases as Page 4 of 10 Asstt. Year 2011-12 bogus

AANYA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rifaur Rahman

133(6) of the Act but nothing was given in respect of load transactions. Therefore, creditworthiness of the depositor is treated as unexplained in absence of evidence supporting above mentioned transaction. 51 Shaileshgiri 198370 250000 6658 I am doing general The depositor had not given any Gulabgiri trading in Surat which evidence in support of nature of Goswami is done

SHRI PRAVIN SHIVLAL SHAH,,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3),, BARODA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

bogus nature of the above transaction to the tune of Rs. 1,18,58,604 - and income of Rs. 1,18,58,604/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act, for which the assessment needs to be re-opened by issuing notice us. 148 of the Act." 2. The assessee, has not filed any return

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Ld. ClT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of R/1,08,94,360/-out of the total addition made of Rs.1,24,50,697/- on account of bogus purchases: I.T.A

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

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

133(6) returned unserved, they were not found at the address given during the field enquiries made by the Inspector and statement of the appellant that he merely issued bills by charging some commission and no material was supplied by them are sufficient to establish that purchases shown from these persons are not genuine. 14. The ld. D.R. contended that

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

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

133(6) returned unserved, they were not found at the address given during the field enquiries made by the Inspector and statement of the appellant that he merely issued bills by charging some commission and no material was supplied by them are sufficient to establish that purchases shown from these persons are not genuine. 14. The ld. D.R. contended that

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

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

133(6) returned unserved, they were not found at the address given during the field enquiries made by the Inspector and statement of the appellant that he merely issued bills by charging some commission and no material was supplied by them are sufficient to establish that purchases shown from these persons are not genuine. 14. The ld. D.R. contended 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

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

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

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

bogus. However we note all the necessary information was provided by the assessee, notice issued under section 133(6) was duly complied with where Seema Holding confirmed the investment made in assessee share capital which was further confirmed by furnishing the notarized affidavit. From the submission of the assessee, we also find that the investor company for the year under

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

SHRI HARSHAD JASWANTLAL SONI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT.,A'BAD RANGE-2,, AHMEDABAD

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

133(6) were returned un-served and found that purchase parties were not existed at the given addresses. Therefore, the purchases remained unverifiable. Consequently, the assessing officer has made disallowance of Rs. 1,16,98,747/- being bogus purchases introduced in the name of different parties mentioned in the assessment order. I.T.A No. 2885/Ahd/2011 A.Y. 2008-09 Page

M/S. YASH CORPORATION,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(4),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.95/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 M/S Yash Corporation, Ito, 410-411, Vrajbhumi Complex, Ward-5(2)(4), Vs. B/H, Shilp Building, Ahmedabad. C.G. Road, Ahmedabad Pan: Aaafy7520M

section 133(6) of the Act were either not served or served, but no compliance was made. However, in this regard, we note that the AO was in possession of the PAN of all the parties along with the jurisdiction then before making any disallowance it was the duty of the AO to verify the same from the AOs having