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

142(1) were issued and complied with, albeit partially, culminating in the assessment order passed on 09.03.2023 under section 147 r.w.s. 144B. n the course of reassessment, the assessee produced purchase register entries, ledger and confirmation from M/s. Mahadev Trading Co., invoices and transport documents, RTGS evidence of payments, matching entries in GSTR-2A; and handwritten weighment slips

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

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

bogus purchases disallowance @ 25% would cover this latter figure as well. The CIT(A) lastly reverses Assessing Officer’s findings in part making section 68 addition of Rs. 32385600/- to the tune of Rs. 449304/- only as under: “In ground no.5 the appellant has disputed the addition of Rs.3,23,85,600 being unexplained cash credit. Perusal of para

CHIRAG ISHWARBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(6), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1182 & 1192/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Chirag Ishwarbhai Patel, I.T.O., 49 Dharamanth Prabhu Society, Vs. Ward-3(3)(6), Near Adishawar Society, Ahmedabad. Nikol Road, Naroda, Ahmedabad.

purchases from him, reopening notice against assesses was justified" 2.4. Further, the appellant has also not brought any specific evidences suggesting that this issue was considered in original Assessment Proceedings. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Praful Chunilal Patel v/s ACIT, 236 ITR 832 (Guj) has held as under: j "Section 147 of the Income

CHIRAG ISHWARBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1182 & 1192/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Chirag Ishwarbhai Patel, I.T.O., 49 Dharamanth Prabhu Society, Vs. Ward-3(3)(6), Near Adishawar Society, Ahmedabad. Nikol Road, Naroda, Ahmedabad.

purchases from him, reopening notice against assesses was justified" 2.4. Further, the appellant has also not brought any specific evidences suggesting that this issue was considered in original Assessment Proceedings. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Praful Chunilal Patel v/s ACIT, 236 ITR 832 (Guj) has held as under: j "Section 147 of the Income

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. MOHAMMEDARIF IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

142(1) and 143(2) of the Act. The Revenue could not dispute the contents of the reply dated 11.08.2014 filed by the assessee. Thus, it is a case of mere “change of opinion”. It is a fact that the Ld. AO has no power to review but he has the power to re-assess. Even reassessment is based

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. MOHAMMEDARIF IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

142(1) and 143(2) of the Act. The Revenue could not dispute the contents of the reply dated 11.08.2014 filed by the assessee. Thus, it is a case of mere “change of opinion”. It is a fact that the Ld. AO has no power to review but he has the power to re-assess. Even reassessment is based

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. , BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

bogus by the Maharashtra VAT department. To our understanding, based upon the information received from the 3rd party, until and unless it is confronted to the assessee, no adverse inference can be drawn. There can be various reasons for the cancellation of the registration such as ITA No. 1462, 1463, 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2018 [Sun Pharma Laboratories

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

bogus by the Maharashtra VAT department. To our understanding, based upon the information received from the 3rd party, until and unless it is confronted to the assessee, no adverse inference can be drawn. There can be various reasons for the cancellation of the registration such as ITA No. 1462, 1463, 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2018 [Sun Pharma Laboratories

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

bogus by the Maharashtra VAT department. To our understanding, based upon the information received from the 3rd party, until and unless it is confronted to the assessee, no adverse inference can be drawn. There can be various reasons for the cancellation of the registration such as ITA No. 1462, 1463, 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2018 [Sun Pharma Laboratories

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. , BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

bogus by the Maharashtra VAT department. To our understanding, based upon the information received from the 3rd party, until and unless it is confronted to the assessee, no adverse inference can be drawn. There can be various reasons for the cancellation of the registration such as ITA No. 1462, 1463, 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2018 [Sun Pharma Laboratories

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