BHAGAT MARKETING PVT LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, in light of the above observations and the judicial precedents on the subject, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

bogus purchases in accordance with law and thus revision under section. 263 is nothing but a change of opinion and hence order u/s. 263 is bad in law. 2. The directions given to AO in para 7, 7.1 and 8 of order under section 263 by the ld. Pr.CIT are already carried

GUJARAT VAIBHAV PUBLICATIONS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

bogus purchase at the rate of 15% which was reduced to 8% by the Ld. CIT(A). He further submitted that, considering the gross profit of 2.57% disclosed by the assessee, the estimation of profit @ 8% as upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) was reasonable. 10. We have considered the rival submissions. The contention of the assessee is that

GUJARAT VAIBHAV PUBLICATIONS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

bogus purchase at the rate of 15% which was reduced to 8% by the Ld. CIT(A). He further submitted that, considering the gross profit of 2.57% disclosed by the assessee, the estimation of profit @ 8% as upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) was reasonable. 10. We have considered the rival submissions. The contention of the assessee is that

ESPEE PHARMA CHEM PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year:2019-20

section 151A of the Act, thereby making the entire proceedings and resultant impugned orders void ab initio. Espee Pharma Chem Pvt Ltd vs.ITO, A.Y 2019-20 3 3. In confirming the addition made of Rs. 42,95,000/- towards bogus purchase u/s 69C by passing an order u/s 148 of the Act, without providing the approval granted u/s 151

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

purchases made from other concerns in other years, there are corresponding concerns in table 2 in the annexure to his statement. 10. He categorically admitted that all the loans and advances are merely bogus in nature. He also submitted date-wise and party-wise details of such bogus transactions. Further, Shri Bharat Padiya, Executive Director of Dishman Group has also

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

purchases made from other concerns in other years, there are corresponding concerns in table 2 in the annexure to his statement. 10. He categorically admitted that all the loans and advances are merely bogus in nature. He also submitted date-wise and party-wise details of such bogus transactions. Further, Shri Bharat Padiya, Executive Director of Dishman Group has also

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

purchases made from other concerns in other years, there are corresponding concerns in table 2 in the annexure to his statement. 10. He categorically admitted that all the loans and advances are merely bogus in nature. He also submitted date-wise and party-wise details of such bogus transactions. Further, Shri Bharat Padiya, Executive Director of Dishman Group has also

ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND vs. NARENDRAKUMAR HANSRAJBHAI PATEL, KHEDA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.834/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2021-22 The Acit Narendrakumar Hansrajbhai बनाम/ Dy./Asst.Commissioner Of Patel V/S. Income Tax (Anand Circle) I C/O. Mahakali Saw Mill Anand – 388 001 Mansarovar Marker Kamla Kamia, Kheda – 387 320 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Cmmpp 6784 N (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mishal Mehta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 27/02/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-2022. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether, On Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 10,64,04,151/-Made U/S 69C Of The Act Without Appreciating The Fact The Assessee Failed To Substantiate The Expenditure Claimed With Supporting Evidences? Asst.Cit Vs. Narendrakumar Hansrajbhai Patel Asst. Year : 2021-22

bogus merely because certain suppliers did not respond to the AO’s notices or had filed low returns. In view of the detailed evidence produced by the assessee demonstrating the genuineness of purchases and sales, the CIT(A) held that the addition of ₹10,64,04,151/- made by the AO under section 69C of the Act. was unsustainable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MONARCH NETWORTH CAPITAL LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly\ndismissed as not pressed.\n17. In the combined result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue for\nA.Ys.2013–14, 2014–15 and 2015–16 are dismissed

151.\nThough the communication of reasons was delayed, it was not fatal to the\njurisdiction.\n5. 1. However, on merits, the CIT(A) found substantial force in the\nsubmissions of the assessee. After detailed examination, the CIT(A) held that\nthe AO had merely relied on general statements and third-party\ninvestigations without establishing a direct nexus between the assessee

NARMADA CONCAST PRIVATE LIMITED,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

2 to section 147 are applicable to facts of this case and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be a case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In this case more than four years have lapsed form the end of assessment year under consideration. Hence, necessary sanction to issue notice u/s 148 is being obtained separately

KALPANABEN VADILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above\nterms

purchase and sale of shares (penny\nstock). Therefore, it is case where the assessee has invested in shares\nand earned out the transactions with her undisclosed income.\n4.\nEnquiries made by the AO as sequel to information collected/\nreceived: On verification of details received, it is noticed that the\nassessee is one of the beneficiaries, who has entered into\ntransactions

H K ISPAT PVT. LTD.,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

151 wherein it was held as under. "Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Cash credit (Loans) -Assessing Officer treated a part of loan taken by assessee, taken from agriculturists, as non- genuine and made addition under section 68 However, assessee produced copy of 7/12 extract from land register maintained by land revenue, loan confirmation letter, copy

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

151 wherein it was held as under. "Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Cash credit (Loans) -Assessing Officer treated a part of loan taken by assessee, taken from agriculturists, as non- genuine and made addition under section 68 However, assessee produced copy of 7/12 extract from land register maintained by land revenue, loan confirmation letter, copy

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

151 wherein it was held as under. "Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Cash credit (Loans) -Assessing Officer treated a part of loan taken by assessee, taken from agriculturists, as non- genuine and made addition under section 68 However, assessee produced copy of 7/12 extract from land register maintained by land revenue, loan confirmation letter, copy

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MONARCH NETWORTH CAPITAL LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly\ndismissed as not pressed.\n17. In the combined result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue for\nA.Ys.2013–14, 2014–15 and 2015–16 are dismissed

151.\nThough the communication of reasons was delayed, it was not fatal to the\njurisdiction.\n5.1. However, on merits, the CIT(A) found substantial force in the\nsubmissions of the assessee. After detailed examination, the CIT(A) held that\nthe AO had merely relied on general statements and third-party\ninvestigations without establishing a direct nexus between the assessee

AMEE GOVINDBHAI PATEL,MEHSANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD-1,, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is, therefore, allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

bogus purchases, expenses, etc. The assessee ought to have disclosed income received by oil means by filing return of income for the year under consideration. 4. From the above facts & discussion, it is noted that me lessee was in possession of unaccounted income which was above taxable limit. The assessee ought to have disclosed fully and truly all the material

OMKARA IMPEX AND MERCHANDISE LLP,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

151. The assessee did not file its return of income in\nresponse to the notice under Section 148 of the Act. The AO issued multiple\nnotices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2) of the act, calling for details.\nHowever, the assessee remained non-compliant and failed to furnish\nsupporting documents to substantiate the purchases. The AO passed a best

SHAMA AJAY PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(IT & TP), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shama Ajay Patel, Vs. 2, Chandroday Society, The Cit(It & Tp), Opp. Golden Triangle, Sp Ahmedabad Stadium Road, Navjivan Post, Ahmedabad-380014 Pan : Alxpp 5273 E अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It & Tp), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. "Cit(It & Tp)" For Short] Dated 08.02.2023, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit (It & Tp) Reads As Under:- “1. The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Passing Order U/S 263 Without Jurisdiction & Appropriate Powers Available Under The Act. It Is Submitted That The Order Passed U/S. 263 Is Bad In Law As A.O. Has Neither Committed Any Error Nor It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. It Be Held Now.

purchased during the year. The assessee has sold out 30530 shares during the year and shown to have earned short term gain of Rs.51.16,561.25/-. The assessee in details submitted during the proceedings that she has earned short term gain of Rs.50,74,200/-. However, the opening value of shares could not be ascertained from her submission. Therefore, in absence

MANISH RANJAN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MONARCH NETWORTH CAPITAL LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue for A.Y. 2015–16 is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

151. Though the communication of reasons was delayed, it was not fatal to the jurisdiction. 5.1. However, on merits, the CIT(A) found substantial force in the submissions of the assessee. After detailed examination, the CIT(A) held that the AO had merely relied on general statements and third-party investigations without establishing a direct nexus between the assessee