MADHAV COPPER LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

Section of AO's Order 147 r.w.s. 144B 143(3) r.w.s. 144B 143(3) r.w.s. 144B Amount of Alleged Bogus Purchases added (Rs.) 92,95,26,352/- 49,84,90,503/- 412,48,43,029/- Gross Profit Rate Applied by AO 12.50% 12.50% 12.50% Addition Made

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

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

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

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

14. The ld. D.R. contended that the assessee has not challenged these findings of the ld. CIT(A) that the impugned purchases were bogus and in 9 I.T.A No. 1477/Ahd/17 & 1826/Ahd/2016 & Ors. A.Y. 2011-12 & Ors. Page No such circumstances there was no recourse left but to disallow the entire expenses of sales promotion relating to these parties

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

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

14. The ld. D.R. contended that the assessee has not challenged these findings of the ld. CIT(A) that the impugned purchases were bogus and in 9 I.T.A No. 1477/Ahd/17 & 1826/Ahd/2016 & Ors. A.Y. 2011-12 & Ors. Page No such circumstances there was no recourse left but to disallow the entire expenses of sales promotion relating to these parties

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

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

14. The ld. D.R. contended that the assessee has not challenged these findings of the ld. CIT(A) that the impugned purchases were bogus and in 9 I.T.A No. 1477/Ahd/17 & 1826/Ahd/2016 & Ors. A.Y. 2011-12 & Ors. Page No such circumstances there was no recourse left but to disallow the entire expenses of sales promotion relating to these parties

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)

14,82,326/- is hereby added to the total income of the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 69 of the I.T.Act, 1961." ITA Nos. 1379 & 1380/Ahd/2016 20 . A.Ys. 2010-11-2011-12 4. Against the addition of 12.5% of the total purchase, assessee preferred first statutory appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who held that the undisclosed income

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

14-07-2014, in proceedings under 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

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 DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1),, BARODA vs. M/S/ AMAR MINING COMPANY,, BARODA

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 1998-99

bogus purchase against the assessee. The said addition was deleted by the ld. CIT(A). In fact, the ld. ITAT, on the premise of difference of opinion, sent down the matter to the Assessing Officer for readjudication of the issue. He further submitted before us that there was no conclusive evidence which shows that there is a concealment of income

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

SHRI KIRTIKUMAR VASANTBHAI THAKKAR,,PATAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, PATAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 271(1)(c) is not applicable when additions are made on estimate basis without any cogent material or findings on record that assessee concealed the income or provided inaccurate particulars of income.”\ All the above mentioned three grounds of appeal are interconnected to the same issue therefore they are adjudicated together as below. 3. In this case, return

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

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

14-02-2012 reiterating his above bogus purchases and disallowances/additions (supra). The CIT(A) thereafter observed that it was at the best a case of raw material purchases unregistered I.T.A 858 C.O.106 /Ahd/2012 & ITA 467/Ahd/2013 A.Y. 08-09 & 09-10 Page No 5 ACIT vs. M/s. Pankaj Cotton Industries dealers to save VAT etc. He finds in page

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

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