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:

2. The NFAC erred in disallowing the appellant's claim for alleged bogus purchases without considering that the Ld. AO had accepted the corresponding sales made by the appellant. When sales have been accepted, corresponding purchases should have been accepted too. 3. NFAC erred in treating the purchases made by the appellant as bogus u/s 69C since the same

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

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

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 added (Rs.) 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

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 added (Rs.) Gross Profit Rate Applied by AO 12.50% 12.50% 12.50% Addition Made

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

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 added (Rs.) Gross Profit Rate Applied by AO 12.50% 12.50% 12.50% Addition Made

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\nby the assessee, stand dismissed

143(1)(a)\n(Rs.)\nNA\n6,61,29,990/-\n6,58,34,650/-\nDate of AO's Order\n23.03.2023\n27.09.2022\n23.12.2022\nSection of AO's Order\n147 r.w.s.\n144B\n143(3) r.w.s.\n144B\n143(3) r.w.s.\n144B\nAmount of Alleged Bogus\nPurchases added (Rs.)\n92,95,26,352/-\n49,84,90,503/-\n412,48,43,029/-\nGross Profit Rate

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

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

143(2) of the Act notices were not issued (rendering them “unabated”) cannot be disturbed under section 153A of the Act unless incriminating evidence is found. In this case, gift deeds and other routine documents were discovered, which were already disclosed in the returns filed by the assessee. The ITAT ruled that such documents do not qualify as incriminating material

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

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

143(2) of the Act notices were not issued (rendering them “unabated”) cannot be disturbed under section 153A of the Act unless incriminating evidence is found. In this case, gift deeds and other routine documents were discovered, which were already disclosed in the returns filed by the assessee. The ITAT ruled that such documents do not qualify as incriminating material

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

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

143(2) of the Act notices were not issued (rendering them “unabated”) cannot be disturbed under section 153A of the Act unless incriminating evidence is found. In this case, gift deeds and other routine documents were discovered, which were already disclosed in the returns filed by the assessee. The ITAT ruled that such documents do not qualify as incriminating material

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

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

143(2) of the Act notices were not issued (rendering them “unabated”) cannot be disturbed under section 153A of the Act unless incriminating evidence is found. In this case, gift deeds and other routine documents were discovered, which were already disclosed in the returns filed by the assessee. The ITAT ruled that such documents do not qualify as incriminating material

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

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

143(2) of the Act notices were not issued (rendering them “unabated”) cannot be disturbed under section 153A of the Act unless incriminating evidence is found. In this case, gift deeds and other routine documents were discovered, which were already disclosed in the returns filed by the assessee. The ITAT ruled that such documents do not qualify as incriminating material

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

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

143(2) of the Act notices were not issued (rendering them “unabated”) cannot be disturbed under section 153A of the Act unless incriminating evidence is found. In this case, gift deeds and other routine documents were discovered, which were already disclosed in the returns filed by the assessee. The ITAT ruled that such documents do not qualify as incriminating material

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

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

143(2) of the Act notices were not issued (rendering them “unabated”) cannot be disturbed under section 153A of the Act unless incriminating evidence is found. In this case, gift deeds and other routine documents were discovered, which were already disclosed in the returns filed by the assessee. The ITAT ruled that such documents do not qualify as incriminating material

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

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

143(2) of the Act notices were not issued (rendering them “unabated”) cannot be disturbed under section 153A of the Act unless incriminating evidence is found. In this case, gift deeds and other routine documents were discovered, which were already disclosed in the returns filed by the assessee. The ITAT ruled that such documents do not qualify as incriminating material

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

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

143(2) of the Act notices were not issued (rendering them “unabated”) cannot be disturbed under section 153A of the Act unless incriminating evidence is found. In this case, gift deeds and other routine documents were discovered, which were already disclosed in the returns filed by the assessee. The ITAT ruled that such documents do not qualify as incriminating material

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

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

143(2) of the Act notices were not issued (rendering them “unabated”) cannot be disturbed under section 153A of the Act unless incriminating evidence is found. In this case, gift deeds and other routine documents were discovered, which were already disclosed in the returns filed by the assessee. The ITAT ruled that such documents do not qualify as incriminating material

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

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

143(2) of the Act notices were not issued (rendering them “unabated”) cannot be disturbed under section 153A of the Act unless incriminating evidence is found. In this case, gift deeds and other routine documents were discovered, which were already disclosed in the returns filed by the assessee. The ITAT ruled that such documents do not qualify as incriminating material

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

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

143(2) of the Act notices were not issued (rendering them “unabated”) cannot be disturbed under section 153A of the Act unless incriminating evidence is found. In this case, gift deeds and other routine documents were discovered, which were already disclosed in the returns filed by the assessee. The ITAT ruled that such documents do not qualify as incriminating material

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

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

143(2) of the Act notices were not issued (rendering them “unabated”) cannot be disturbed under section 153A of the Act unless incriminating evidence is found. In this case, gift deeds and other routine documents were discovered, which were already disclosed in the returns filed by the assessee. The ITAT ruled that such documents do not qualify as incriminating material