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

154 taxmann.com 197) (Bombay) where Assessing Officer treated purchases made by assessee as bogus and made addition in respect of same, since assessee had maintained inventory of stock and payments for such purchases were made by account payee cheques and tax invoices were obtained, such purchases could not be rejected and addition to be restricted to the extent of profit

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

154 taxmann.com 197) (Bombay) where Assessing Officer treated purchases made by assessee as bogus and made addition in respect of same, since assessee had maintained inventory of stock and payments for such purchases were made by account payee cheques and tax invoices were obtained, such purchases could not be rejected and addition to be restricted to the extent of profit

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

154 taxmann.com 197) (Bombay) where Assessing Officer treated purchases made by assessee as bogus and made addition in respect of same, since assessee had maintained inventory of stock and payments for such purchases were made by account payee cheques and tax invoices were obtained, such purchases could not be rejected and addition to be restricted to the extent of profit

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

154 taxmann.com 197) (Bombay) where Assessing Officer treated purchases made by assessee as bogus and made addition in respect of same, since assessee had maintained inventory of stock and payments for such purchases were made by account payee cheques and tax invoices were obtained, such purchases could not be rejected and addition to be restricted to the extent of profit

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

154 taxmann.com 197) (Bombay) where Assessing Officer\ntreated purchases made by assessee as bogus and made addition in respect of same,\nsince assessee had maintained inventory of stock and payments for such purchases\nwere made by account payee cheques and tax invoices were obtained, such\npurchases could not be rejected and addition to be restricted to the extent of profit

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

154 taxmann.com 197) (Bombay) where Assessing Officer\ntreated purchases made by assessee as bogus and made addition in respect of same,\nsince assessee had maintained inventory of stock and payments for such purchases\nwere made by account payee cheques and tax invoices were obtained, such\npurchases could not be rejected and addition to be restricted to the extent of profit

ALANG STEEL RECYCLING PRIVATE LIMITED,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalalang Steel Recycling The Pr. Cit-1, Private Limited Vs. Ahmedabad – 380 015 Ground Floor, Shop No.G-1 Sukun-1, Bhilwara Circle Bhavnagar – 364 001 [ Pan: Aamca 4837 A ] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue Represented By : Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr 08.12.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026

bogus purchases during the reassessment proceedings and disallowed 100% of the purchases amounting to ₹77,61,745/- . The Principal Commissioner has not disputed the quantum of disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. The sole basis for invoking section 263 is that, according to the Principal Commissioner, the disallowance should have been made under section 69C read with section 115BBE

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

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

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 for unabated

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

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

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 for unabated

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

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

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 for unabated

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

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

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 for unabated

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

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

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 for unabated

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

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

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 for unabated

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

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

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 for unabated

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

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

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 for unabated

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

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

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 for unabated

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

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

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 for unabated

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

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

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 for unabated

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

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

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 for unabated