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

142(1) were issued and\ncomplied with, albeit partially, culminating in the assessment order passed\non 09.03.2023 under section 147 r.w.s.144B. n the course of reassessment,\nthe assessee produced purchase register entries, ledger and confirmation\nfrom M/s. Mahadev Trading Co., invoices and transport documents, RTGS\nevidence of payments, matching entries in GSTR-2A; and handwritten\nweighment slips. The AO rejected

SANKET RAMNIKLAL JOISAR,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX WARD 1(2)(1), AHD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above\nterms

bogus purchases were unjustified. The assessee had demonstrated that no purchases were made from the identified parties, a fact admitted by the AO.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 145 of Income Tax Act, 1961", "Section 142

SHAH RAKESH BHIKHABHAI (HUF),AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

bogus and deny exemption under section 10(38) - Held, yes [Paras 6.3, 6.5 and 6.11] [In favour of assessee]…” 8.2. Whereas in the present case, a show-cause notice was issued by the Ld.PCIT on 27.03.2023 and on the request made by the assessee, the relevant portion of the statement of Shri Champak N Prajapati was provided to the assessee

DILIPKUMAR PASHABHAI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/Sf 211 Pushp Business Campus Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr. Vastral Cross Road Ahmedabad Sp Ring Road Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 418 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atrpp 9632 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

142(1) regarding the activities, declaring the disputed total same income transactions income as in the and verify computatio original the n, and the return filed authenticity return filed under section ITA Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati vs. ITO Asst. Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 of the credits in response 139(1), in the books. to section without 148. additional

DILIPKUMAR PASHABHAI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/Sf 211 Pushp Business Campus Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr. Vastral Cross Road Ahmedabad Sp Ring Road Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 418 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atrpp 9632 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

142(1) regarding the activities, declaring the disputed total same income transactions income as in the and verify computatio original the n, and the return filed authenticity return filed under section ITA Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati vs. ITO Asst. Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 of the credits in response 139(1), in the books. to section without 148. additional

VINAL COAL PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 896/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Vimal Coal Private Limited, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. T. Hiranand Estate, Nr. Fruit Income-Tax, Market, Naroda Road, Naroda, Circle 4(1)(2), Ahmedabad-380025 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabcv 4259 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Sunil Maloo, Ca ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.08.2024 आदेश/O R D E R

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Confirmation of Addition in Absence of Contradictory Evidence: The decision of the CIT(A) to confirm the addition of INR 25,91,606/- is contended to be baseless, as it lacks substantiation through adverse documentary evidence against the Assessee. Disregard for Documentary Evidence and Vendor Confirmation: The CIT(A) is alleged

JITENDRA RAJKUMAR AGARWAL (PROPRIETOR OF SHRI SHIV SHAKTI ENTERPRISE),AHMEDABAD vs. ASESSMENT UNIT, IT DEPARTMENT JURIS. AO- THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

bogus purchase accommodation entries from M/s. S. K. Enterprises amounting to Rs. 1,75,16,480/- without actual movement or delivery of goods. Based on this information, the assessment was reopened by issuance of notice under section 148 read with section 147 of the Act. 3. During reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued notices under sections 142

ACIT-3(1)(1), AMBAWADI vs. OMSHIV FABRICSHUB PVT. LTD., NAVRANGPURA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1098/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Asstt. Year: 2013-2014

purchases, bogus sales and bogus expenditure to accommodate the assessee. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or to amend all or any of the ground before the final hearing of the appeal. 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of trading of raw cotton. The assessee filed its original return of income

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

ASHAPURA STONE INDUSTRIES,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3 NOW WARD-1, ANAND

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member 1. Ita No.27/Ahd/2024 2. Ita No.28/Ahd/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 (Respectively) Ashapura Stone Industries The Income Tax Officer Nh No.8, Nr. Geb Sub-Station Vs Ward-3 (Now Ward-1) Vasad – 388 306 (Gujarat) Anand Pan: Aaufa 6762 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.T. Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Pertain To Different Assessment Years, But Involve Common Issues (Except Quantum In Appeal) & Hence Are Being Decided Together For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. The Appeals Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) - [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2012-13 & 2013-14, Both Dated 16/11/2023, Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Passed For Respective Assessment Years By Assessing Officer

142(1) of the Act was issued. It was observed by the AO that the Assessee had purchased machinery by paying an advance of Rs.50,00,000/- in FY 2011-12 to said M/s. Umiya Industries. The purchase of Machinery was completed in FY 2012-13 at total cost of Rs.2,16,77,985/- as per the invoice

ASHAPURA STONE INDUSTRIES,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3 NOW WARD-1, ANAND

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member 1. Ita No.27/Ahd/2024 2. Ita No.28/Ahd/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 (Respectively) Ashapura Stone Industries The Income Tax Officer Nh No.8, Nr. Geb Sub-Station Vs Ward-3 (Now Ward-1) Vasad – 388 306 (Gujarat) Anand Pan: Aaufa 6762 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.T. Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Pertain To Different Assessment Years, But Involve Common Issues (Except Quantum In Appeal) & Hence Are Being Decided Together For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. The Appeals Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) - [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2012-13 & 2013-14, Both Dated 16/11/2023, Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Passed For Respective Assessment Years By Assessing Officer

142(1) of the Act was issued. It was observed by the AO that the Assessee had purchased machinery by paying an advance of Rs.50,00,000/- in FY 2011-12 to said M/s. Umiya Industries. The purchase of Machinery was completed in FY 2012-13 at total cost of Rs.2,16,77,985/- as per the invoice

RACHNA SANJAY SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT, AHMEDABAD -1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri/St.R. Senthil Kumar & Narendra Prasad Sinhaasst.Year :2014-2015 Rachana Sanjay Shah The Pr.Cit-1 72, Tapovan Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Manekbaug Hall Ambawadi Ahmedabad 380015. Pan : Amdps 6571 P

section 142(1) dated 25.11.2021, the assessee asked to furnish the detai assessee asked to furnish the details relating to the sale of shares ls relating to the sale of shares viz. “LHSL” amounting amounting to Rs.92,12,772/-. In response to the notice, . In response to the notice, the assessee filed a detailed reply as follows: the assessee filed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD., VEJALPUR vs. 7NR RETAIL LIMITED, NAVRANGPURA

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

bogus accommodation entries, the AO reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Act. In response, the assessee re-filed its return and submitted all details and supporting documents as required under notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act. The assessee submitted that its purchases

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. JOHN ENERGY LTD.,, MEHSANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

142(1) of the Act dated 07.05.2015. The reply of the assessee was considered and the Assessing Officer observed that the whole report is the crucial evidence in assessee’s case. On cross-verification of the said information, the Assessing Officer observed that the details provided by the assessee reveals that the same was entered into such transaction with

M/S. JOHN ENERGY LTD.,,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT., MEHSANA CIRCLE,, MEHSANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

142(1) of the Act dated 07.05.2015. The reply of the assessee was considered and the Assessing Officer observed that the whole report is the crucial evidence in assessee’s case. On cross-verification of the said information, the Assessing Officer observed that the details provided by the assessee reveals that the same was entered into such transaction with

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

142(1) read with Section 129 of the Act and show cause notice under Section 272A(1)(d) of the act also issued. The details were furrnished on 18.11.2019 after issuing of two show cause notices. The Assessing Officer observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee’s status is an individual and he is proprietor of M/s. Gold

THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. CREDO REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD(NOW AS M/S. CSBPROJECT PVT. LTD), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose\nand the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bogus Expenses\nClaimed in the Trading Account - Forfeiture of Advance paid\nto Ramesh M. Patel - Rs.66,30,000/-\n3.1\nThe learned A.O. has erred in law and on facts in not accepting the view\ntaken by the learned CIT(A). The learned A.O. has erred in law and on\nfacts in not appreciating that the learned CIT(A) has after

N K PROTEINS PVT. LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

142(2A) makes it clear that such transactions were not carried out at NSEL platform. However, details submitted by appellant clearly prove that there is only time gap of one day between purchase and sale of CWO with TPPL. The appellant has not explained the reasons for purchase and sell of exactly same quantity of goods with TPPL within

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. N K PROTEINS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

142(2A) makes it clear that such transactions were not carried out at NSEL platform. However, details submitted by appellant clearly prove that there is only time gap of one day between purchase and sale of CWO with TPPL. The appellant has not explained the reasons for purchase and sell of exactly same quantity of goods with TPPL within