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

153 taxmann.com 470) (Bombay) has held that where Assessing Officer added entire amount of purchases to income of assessee on ground that same were bogus purchases, since it was not disputed that purchases were actually made and payments for same were made through account payee cheque and further, assessee ITA No.254 to 256 and 274 to 276 /Ahd/2024

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

153 taxmann.com 470) (Bombay) has held that where Assessing Officer added entire amount of purchases to income of assessee on ground that same were bogus purchases, since it was not disputed that purchases were actually made and payments for same were made through account payee cheque and further, assessee ITA No.254 to 256 and 274 to 276 /Ahd/2024

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

153 taxmann.com 470) (Bombay) has held that where Assessing Officer added entire amount of purchases to income of assessee on ground that same were bogus purchases, since it was not disputed that purchases were actually made and payments for same were made through account payee cheque and further, assessee ITA No.254 to 256 and 274 to 276 /Ahd/2024

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

153\ntaxmann.com 470) (Bombay) has held that where Assessing Officer added entire\namount of purchases to income of assessee on ground that same were bogus\npurchases, since it was not disputed that purchases were actually made and\npayments for same were made through account payee cheque and further, assessee\nhad already declared 7.5 per cent as gross profit, Tribunal

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

153\ntaxmann.com 470) (Bombay) has held that where Assessing Officer added entire\namount of purchases to income of assessee on ground that same were bogus\npurchases, since it was not disputed that purchases were actually made and\npayments for same were made through account payee cheque and further, assessee\nhad already declared 7.5 per cent as gross profit, Tribunal

SADBHAV ENGINEERING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed\nand that of the Revenue are dismissed

purchase order,\netc.\nPara H of the order records that commissions were sent to\nDepartmental authorities in Mumbai to verify genuineness of the\nentities who in turn reported all of them to be bogus.\n28. Finally at Para I, the inference from all of the above is detailed\nmentioning all material found and relied upon for finding entities of\nK.C

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

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. 2. Grievances raised in the appals, which are common but for amounts involved, are as follows :- ITA Nos.2377 & 2378/Ahd/2015 C.O. Nos.186 & 187/Ahd/2015 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Page 2 of 5 “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. 2. Grievances raised in the appals, which are common but for amounts involved, are as follows :- ITA Nos.2377 & 2378/Ahd/2015 C.O. Nos.186 & 187/Ahd/2015 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Page 2 of 5 “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred

BALDEVBHAI LALABHAI LUHAR,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(2), PRATYAKSHAR BHAVAN,AHMEDABAD

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

bogus and made addition to assessee's income under section 69 of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) estimated profit element on such purchases at 12.5 per cent and restricted addition to that extent . The Tribunal dismissed revenue's appeal. The High Court held that section 69 was not applicable to such purchases as only profit had to be added

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

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

153,154,155 & 156/Ahd/2012 dated 29-04-2016). 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on records. The additional ground raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11 challenges the validity of assessments framed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act, in the absence of incriminating material

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

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

153,154,155 & 156/Ahd/2012 dated 29-04-2016). 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on records. The additional ground raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11 challenges the validity of assessments framed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act, in the absence of incriminating material

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

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

153,154,155 & 156/Ahd/2012 dated 29-04-2016). 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on records. The additional ground raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11 challenges the validity of assessments framed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act, in the absence of incriminating material

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

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

153,154,155 & 156/Ahd/2012 dated 29-04-2016). 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on records. The additional ground raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11 challenges the validity of assessments framed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act, in the absence of incriminating material

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

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

153,154,155 & 156/Ahd/2012 dated 29-04-2016). 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on records. The additional ground raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11 challenges the validity of assessments framed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act, in the absence of incriminating material

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

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

153,154,155 & 156/Ahd/2012 dated 29-04-2016). 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on records. The additional ground raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11 challenges the validity of assessments framed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act, in the absence of incriminating material

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

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

153,154,155 & 156/Ahd/2012 dated 29-04-2016). 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on records. The additional ground raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11 challenges the validity of assessments framed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act, in the absence of incriminating material

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

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

153,154,155 & 156/Ahd/2012 dated 29-04-2016). 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on records. The additional ground raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11 challenges the validity of assessments framed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act, in the absence of incriminating material

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

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

153,154,155 & 156/Ahd/2012 dated 29-04-2016). 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on records. The additional ground raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11 challenges the validity of assessments framed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act, in the absence of incriminating material

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

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

153,154,155 & 156/Ahd/2012 dated 29-04-2016). 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on records. The additional ground raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11 challenges the validity of assessments framed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act, in the absence of incriminating material