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.

143(3) read with section 147 of the Act vide order dated 01-11-2017 is not sustainable and thus liable to be quashed. However the learned CIT(A) rejected the contention of the assessee by observing as under: 2.3, / have carefully considered the issues, submissions of the appellant, judicial pronouncements and the discussions/findings of the AO in the assessment

AMBE TRADECORP PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.53/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Ambe Tradecorp Private Limited, The P.C.I.T.(Central) Iscon House, Vs. Ahmedabad. B/H. Rembrandt Building, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad.

bogus entries in the form of loan from these companies. But the AO, during the assessment proceedings has not considered this fact. In this connection, we have gone through the order of settlement commission which is available on record. Going through para No. 12 of such order we find that the settlement commission has discussed the flow of fund transferred

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 purchases under section 143(3) read with section 254 of the Act. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee has failed to discharge its obligation during the reassessment proceedings since the assessee firm has not been able to produce the parties from whom purchases were made during the F.Y. 1997-98 relates

SAKET M JAINI(HUF),AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-5, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 579/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Saket M. Jain (Huf), The Pr. Commissioner Of 403, 3Rd Eye Two, Vs. Income Tax-2, Nr. Joyalukkas Show Room, Ahmedabad. Opp. Parimal Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad.

purchases as bogus and on other hand estimating the profit instead of treating the sales made by the assessee as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 7.1 In view of the above the Learned Pr. CIT held the assessment order framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act vide order dated 26/12/2016 Asstt

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(OSD) CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

143(3) of the Act, whether the assessee can made a similar claim in the income escapement proceedings. 41. We are of the view that reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act are for the benefit of the revenue and not for the assessee as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

143(3) of the Act, whether the assessee can made a similar claim in the income escapement proceedings. 41. We are of the view that reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act are for the benefit of the revenue and not for the assessee as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

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

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

1)(a) (Rs.) NA 6,61,29,990/- 6,58,34,650/- Date of AO's Order 23.03.2023 27.09.2022 23.12.2022 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

ITO WARD-4(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. VALLEY COMTRADE PVT LTD ( EARLIER KNOWN AS JHAWAR COMTRADE PVT. LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddharatha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2034/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 I.T.O, M/S. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., Ward-4(1)(4), Vs. (Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Ahmedabad. Pvt. Ltd.,) C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli Bmw Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aadcs3553N & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 68/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 M/S. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O, (Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Vs. Ward-1(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd.,) Surat. C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli Bmw Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aadcs3553N

section 143(1) of the Act. The relevant undisputed submission of the assessee reads as under: We enclosed herewith intimation u/s 143(1} of the Act in the-.case of SEEMA-HOLDING (P) LTD for A Y 2012-13 in which its total income has been accepted and a TDS Credit of Rs. 7,00,476/- has been granted. Refund

DCIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ALPESHKUMAR C.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1908/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive In Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. Pan: Aeapp9489G

143(3) of the Act except denying the exemption claimed under section 54F of the Act which is contrary to stand of the revenue as discussed above. Thus on this count only, the assessee cannot also be denied the benefit of exemption under section 54F of the Act. Hence, the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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, 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