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

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

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

bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.62,08,914/-, and we accordingly direct deletion of the same. Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed. 19. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.891/Ahd/2018 is partly allowed. 20. Now we take up the assessee’s appeal in ITA No.892/Ahd/2018 for Asst.Year 2014-15. 21. The issue raised

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

bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.62,08,914/-, and we accordingly direct deletion of the same. Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed. 19. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.891/Ahd/2018 is partly allowed. 20. Now we take up the assessee’s appeal in ITA No.892/Ahd/2018 for Asst.Year 2014-15. 21. The issue raised

THE JT.CIT, CIRCLE-6(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI NILESH RAMESHCHANDRA SHAH,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

14-05-2024 Date of pronouncement : 29-07-2024 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the Revenue as against the appellate order dated 13.02.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad restricting the Penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

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

14,31,10,475/-. To verify genuineness of purchase, notices u/s 133(6) were issued to the parties to file confirmations, ledger account and other relevant details like bank statement, ITR, audit report and transportation details. In case of seven parties, the notices were returned back with remark "left" or "not known". No reply was received from the other five

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 liable for disallowance in full. The DR stressed that no dealings existed with the said supplier either in prior or subsequent years, thereby suggesting that the transactions are fabricated and accommodated through accommodation entries merely to inflate purchases and reduce taxable profits. ITA Nos.2111 & 2135/Ahd/2024 Leela Greenship Recycling Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT A.Y 2018-19 14. Per contra

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

section 149 of the Act, was relevant only where the case was reopened after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. In the present case, the case was reopened within four years and, therefore, the quantum of escapement of income was not relevant at all. The case could have been rightly reopened by the Assessing

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

section 149 of the Act, was relevant only where the case was reopened after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. In the present case, the case was reopened within four years and, therefore, the quantum of escapement of income was not relevant at all. The case could have been rightly reopened by the Assessing

DHARMESSH SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, PATAN

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2019-20 Dharmessh Shah The Ito, Ward-1 A-301, Vasantkunj Vs Patan. Garden Residency Sanjivan Road Paldi, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aelps 5203 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Kunal T. Sanghavi, Ar Assessee By : Shri Prathvij Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

purchases from M/s. Vishnu Gold as high-risk, allegedly involving bogus Input Tax Credit. The AO issued notice under section 148A(b), duly considered the assessee's response, and passed an order under section 148A(d), followed by issue of notice under section 148. The Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the validity of such reopening by relying on Explanation

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

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

14 and other subsequent years. The Revenue contended that the purchases were not substantiated by sufficient documentation and treated some purchases as bogus. The AO disallowed the expenses related to these purchases, questioning their authenticity and alleging that the transactions lacked the necessary supporting evidence. The assessee argued that all purchases were genuine, backed by proper documentation, and were necessary

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

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

14 and other subsequent years. The Revenue contended that the purchases were not substantiated by sufficient documentation and treated some purchases as bogus. The AO disallowed the expenses related to these purchases, questioning their authenticity and alleging that the transactions lacked the necessary supporting evidence. The assessee argued that all purchases were genuine, backed by proper documentation, and were necessary

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

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

14 and other subsequent years. The Revenue contended that the purchases were not substantiated by sufficient documentation and treated some purchases as bogus. The AO disallowed the expenses related to these purchases, questioning their authenticity and alleging that the transactions lacked the necessary supporting evidence. The assessee argued that all purchases were genuine, backed by proper documentation, and were necessary

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

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

14 and other subsequent years. The Revenue contended that the purchases were not substantiated by sufficient documentation and treated some purchases as bogus. The AO disallowed the expenses related to these purchases, questioning their authenticity and alleging that the transactions lacked the necessary supporting evidence. The assessee argued that all purchases were genuine, backed by proper documentation, and were necessary

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

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

14 and other subsequent years. The Revenue contended that the purchases were not substantiated by sufficient documentation and treated some purchases as bogus. The AO disallowed the expenses related to these purchases, questioning their authenticity and alleging that the transactions lacked the necessary supporting evidence. The assessee argued that all purchases were genuine, backed by proper documentation, and were necessary

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

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

14 and other subsequent years. The Revenue contended that the purchases were not substantiated by sufficient documentation and treated some purchases as bogus. The AO disallowed the expenses related to these purchases, questioning their authenticity and alleging that the transactions lacked the necessary supporting evidence. The assessee argued that all purchases were genuine, backed by proper documentation, and were necessary

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

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

14 and other subsequent years. The Revenue contended that the purchases were not substantiated by sufficient documentation and treated some purchases as bogus. The AO disallowed the expenses related to these purchases, questioning their authenticity and alleging that the transactions lacked the necessary supporting evidence. The assessee argued that all purchases were genuine, backed by proper documentation, and were necessary