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

bogus suppliers. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice under section 148 and framed the ITA No.254 to 256 and 274 to 276 /Ahd/2024 3 reassessment 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

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

bogus suppliers. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice under section 148 and framed the ITA No.254 to 256 and 274 to 276 /Ahd/2024 3 reassessment 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

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

bogus suppliers. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice under section 148 and framed the ITA No.254 to 256 and 274 to 276 /Ahd/2024 3 reassessment 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

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

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

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

section 68 Rudra Global Infra Products Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Year –2018-19 - 8– towards entire bogus purchases, since AO made addition only on basis of said information without carrying out any further inquiry as to genuineness of purchases made by assessee, additions on account of alleged bogus purchases was rightly restricted to 5 per cent. 13. In the case

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

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

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.

section 145(3) and GP enhanced. (b) Why the sales amount of 4,02,00,055/- be not treated as unexplained cash credit in view of the finding of survey team that purchases are bogus

THE DY. CIT, (OSD)-I, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KINTECH SYNERGY PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

purchase which could be added in income of assessee and thus, rightly so done by Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal - Held, yes [Paras 6 & 7] [In favour of assessee] ii. CIT v Simit P. Sheth (2013) 219 Taxman 85 (Guj.) :- Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Method of accounting -Estimation of Profits [Bogus

THE DY. CIT, (OSD)-I, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KINTECH SYNERGY PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

purchase which could be added in income of assessee and thus, rightly so done by Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal - Held, yes [Paras 6 & 7] [In favour of assessee] ii. CIT v Simit P. Sheth (2013) 219 Taxman 85 (Guj.) :- Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Method of accounting -Estimation of Profits [Bogus

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

bogus as entire quantity was not sold. Only profit margin embedded in such purchases would be subject to tax and not entire purchases, held in the order." In view of ratio laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court the addition was justified on account of suppression of the contract receipts if only but only to the extent of profit

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

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(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961", "Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961" ], "issues": "Whether the rejection of books of accounts and estimation of income by the AO based on alleged bogus

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

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

bogus purchases), the assessee’s books did not meet the statutory standards for completeness and accuracy. The AO invoked section 145

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

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

bogus purchases), the assessee’s books did not meet the statutory standards for completeness and accuracy. The AO invoked section 145

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

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

bogus purchases), the assessee’s books did not meet the statutory standards for completeness and accuracy. The AO invoked section 145

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

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

bogus purchases), the assessee’s books did not meet the statutory standards for completeness and accuracy. The AO invoked section 145

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

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

bogus purchases), the assessee’s books did not meet the statutory standards for completeness and accuracy. The AO invoked section 145

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

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

bogus purchases), the assessee’s books did not meet the statutory standards for completeness and accuracy. The AO invoked section 145

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

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

bogus purchases), the assessee’s books did not meet the statutory standards for completeness and accuracy. The AO invoked section 145

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

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

bogus purchases), the assessee’s books did not meet the statutory standards for completeness and accuracy. The AO invoked section 145