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

bogus suppliers. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice under section 148 and framed the\nreassessment under section 143(3) r.w.s.147. On finding that the assessee had not satisfactorily discharged the onus of establishing the genuineness of purchases and the identity of the suppliers, the AO invoked the provisions of section 145(3), rejected the books of account, and applied

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

1)(a) NA 6,61,29,990/- 6,58,34,650/- (Rs.) Date of AO’s Order 23.03.2023 27.09.2022 23.12.2022 Section of AO’s Order 147 r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B 144B 144B Amount of Alleged Bogus 92,95,26,352/- 49,84,90,503/- 412,48,43,029/- Purchases

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

1)(a) NA 6,61,29,990/- 6,58,34,650/- (Rs.) Date of AO’s Order 23.03.2023 27.09.2022 23.12.2022 Section of AO’s Order 147 r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B 144B 144B Amount of Alleged Bogus 92,95,26,352/- 49,84,90,503/- 412,48,43,029/- Purchases

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

1)(a) NA 6,61,29,990/- 6,58,34,650/- (Rs.) Date of AO’s Order 23.03.2023 27.09.2022 23.12.2022 Section of AO’s Order 147 r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B 144B 144B Amount of Alleged Bogus 92,95,26,352/- 49,84,90,503/- 412,48,43,029/- Purchases

PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

143(3) r.w.s to 147 of the Act on 04/03/2021 accepting returned income and after giving benefit of exemption under sections 11/2 of the Income Tax Act. He further stated that disclosure made in PMGKY in A.Y. 2014-15 was also subject matter of assessment wherein similar exemption is given to appellant and similar

PARUL UNIVERSITY,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT,EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

143(3) r.w.s to 147 of the Act on 04/03/2021 accepting returned income and after giving benefit of exemption under sections 11/2 of the Income Tax Act. He further stated that disclosure made in PMGKY in A.Y. 2014-15 was also subject matter of assessment wherein similar exemption is given to appellant and similar

PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

143(3) r.w.s to 147 of the Act on 04/03/2021 accepting returned income and after giving benefit of exemption under sections 11/2 of the Income Tax Act. He further stated that disclosure made in PMGKY in A.Y. 2014-15 was also subject matter of assessment wherein similar exemption is given to appellant and similar

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST, , AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

143(3) r.w.s to 147 of the Act on 04/03/2021 accepting returned income and after giving benefit of exemption under sections 11/2 of the Income Tax Act. He further stated that disclosure made in PMGKY in A.Y. 2014-15 was also subject matter of assessment wherein similar exemption is given to appellant and similar

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

143(3) r.w.s to 147 of the Act on 04/03/2021 accepting returned income and after giving benefit of exemption under sections 11/2 of the Income Tax Act. He further stated that disclosure made in PMGKY in A.Y. 2014-15 was also subject matter of assessment wherein similar exemption is given to appellant and similar

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

143(3) of the Act. The case of assessee was reopened on basis of information received from Sales Tax Department that assessee had made purchases of Rs. 4.50 crores, which seemed to be accommodation entries. An order was passed making entire addition of Rs. 4.50 crores as bogus purchase under section 69C of the Act. Ld. CIT(Appeals) held that

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

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

1. Both the lower authorities erred in law and on facts in framing assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A ignoring fact that there was no incriminating material and impugned year is falls in the category of unabated assessment year. Appellant also craves leave to add, amend, alter, change, delete and edit the above ground of appeal before

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

1. Both the lower authorities erred in law and on facts in framing assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A ignoring fact that there was no incriminating material and impugned year is falls in the category of unabated assessment year. Appellant also craves leave to add, amend, alter, change, delete and edit the above ground of appeal before

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

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

1. Both the lower authorities erred in law and on facts in framing assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A ignoring fact that there was no incriminating material and impugned year is falls in the category of unabated assessment year. Appellant also craves leave to add, amend, alter, change, delete and edit the above ground of appeal before

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

1. Both the lower authorities erred in law and on facts in framing assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A ignoring fact that there was no incriminating material and impugned year is falls in the category of unabated assessment year. Appellant also craves leave to add, amend, alter, change, delete and edit the above ground of appeal before

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

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

1. Both the lower authorities erred in law and on facts in framing assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A ignoring fact that there was no incriminating material and impugned year is falls in the category of unabated assessment year. Appellant also craves leave to add, amend, alter, change, delete and edit the above ground of appeal before

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

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

1. Both the lower authorities erred in law and on facts in framing assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A ignoring fact that there was no incriminating material and impugned year is falls in the category of unabated assessment year. Appellant also craves leave to add, amend, alter, change, delete and edit the above ground of appeal before

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

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

1. Both the lower authorities erred in law and on facts in framing assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A ignoring fact that there was no incriminating material and impugned year is falls in the category of unabated assessment year. Appellant also craves leave to add, amend, alter, change, delete and edit the above ground of appeal before

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

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

1. Both the lower authorities erred in law and on facts in framing assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A ignoring fact that there was no incriminating material and impugned year is falls in the category of unabated assessment year. Appellant also craves leave to add, amend, alter, change, delete and edit the above ground of appeal before