INDIAN ION EXCHANGE & CHEMICALS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1) PREVIOUSLY WARD-2(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 148 of the Act was issued on 22.03.2019. In the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.92,20,100/- on account of purchases made from M/s. Siddh Syndicate which were held as bogus

SHRI KIRTIKUMAR VASANTBHAI THAKKAR,,PATAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, PATAN

In the result, both the grounds of the appeal of the assessee are dismissed

section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, learned CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining additions of Rs. 5,09,032 out of I.T.A No. 3042/Ahd/2014

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 68 of the Act. Thus it is transpired that the AO has taken a conscious view which was one of the possible view by accepting the purchases and sales as genuine. Thus in our considered view the learned Pr. CIT cannot substitute the possible view taken by the AO by his (ld. CIT-A) own view. In holding

SHRI PRAVIN SHIVLAL SHAH,,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3),, BARODA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

section 69 of the I.T.Act, 1961." ITA Nos. 1379 & 1380/Ahd/2016 20 . A.Ys. 2010-11-2011-12 4. Against the addition of 12.5% of the total purchase, assessee preferred first statutory appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who held that the undisclosed income of the appellant should be assessed @ 10% of purchase shown to have been made by him from

M/S. GSP CROP SCIENCE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.62,08,914/-, and we accordingly direct deletion of the same. Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed. 19. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.891/Ahd/2018 is partly allowed. 20. Now we take up the assessee’s appeal in ITA No.892/Ahd/2018 for Asst.Year 2014-15. 21. The issue raised

M/S. GSP CROP SCIENCE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.62,08,914/-, and we accordingly direct deletion of the same. Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed. 19. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.891/Ahd/2018 is partly allowed. 20. Now we take up the assessee’s appeal in ITA No.892/Ahd/2018 for Asst.Year 2014-15. 21. The issue raised

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. PANKAJ COTTON INDUSTRIES, PATAN

20% of the above purchases has assessee’s undisclosed income to the tune of Rs. 5691610/-. There is no dispute that the said purchases read a figure of Rs. 28458054/- in case of M/s Vishal Traders in the impugned assessment year. This made the Assessing Officer to seek necessary purchase details during scrutiny. The assessee failed to prove the same

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

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1),, BARODA vs. M/S/ AMAR MINING COMPANY,, BARODA

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 1998-99

bogus purchase against the assessee. The said addition was deleted by the ld. CIT(A). In fact, the ld. ITAT, on the premise of difference of opinion, sent down the matter to the Assessing Officer for readjudication of the issue. He further submitted before us that there was no conclusive evidence which shows that there is a concealment of income

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR vs. LEELA GREENSHIP RECYCLING PRIVATE LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of above directions

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 2111/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Leela Greenship Recycling Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Office No.303, 3Rd Floor, बनाम/ Commissioner V/S. B Wing, Leela Efcee, Of Income Tax, Near Aksharwadi Temple, Circle-1, Waghawadi Road, Bhavnagar. Bhavnagar-364002. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aagcg8956L

bogus. The addition was made primarily on the ground that the supplier Mahadev Trading Co. was not found at the address and was suspected to be non-genuine based on external intelligence input. No direct evidence of fictitious purchases, cash back, or fund rotation was brought on record. c. It may also be noted that N.K. Industries arose

SHRI SANDEEPKUMAR S. CHANDAK,,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, S.K. WARD-1,, HIMATNAGAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

20 grounds of appeal but the effective issue relates to the purchases made by the assessee amounting to Rs. 55,61,085.00 only which were treated as bogus. For the sake of brevity and convenience, we are not inclined to reproduce the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the memo of appeal. 3. Briefly stated facts are that

M/S. ACCRA PAC (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ground numbers 5 to 7 of the assessee’s appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

section 69C of the Act. 3) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the material placed before the Assessing Officer and himself in this regard. 4) Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of law, the appellant submits that the disallowance u/s.69C is unjustified and requires to be deleted

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. M/S. ULTRA TECH TRANSMISSION,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

20 per cent on account of unexplained purchases. The Tribunal further reduced said disallowance to 10 per cent of purchases relying on decision of coordinate bench of Tribunal. The Gujarat High Court upheld the order of Tribunal and held that the same did not require any interference and confirmed the disallowance @10% of bogus purchases. In the case of Jagdish

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. M/S. ULTRA TECH TRANSMISSION,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

20 per cent on account of unexplained purchases. The Tribunal further reduced said disallowance to 10 per cent of purchases relying on decision of coordinate bench of Tribunal. The Gujarat High Court upheld the order of Tribunal and held that the same did not require any interference and confirmed the disallowance @10% of bogus purchases. In the case of Jagdish

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. M/S. ULTRA TECH TRANSMISSION,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

20 per cent on account of unexplained purchases. The Tribunal further reduced said disallowance to 10 per cent of purchases relying on decision of coordinate bench of Tribunal. The Gujarat High Court upheld the order of Tribunal and held that the same did not require any interference and confirmed the disallowance @10% of bogus purchases. In the case of Jagdish

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. ULTRA TECH TRANSMISSION,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

20 per cent on account of unexplained purchases. The Tribunal further reduced said disallowance to 10 per cent of purchases relying on decision of coordinate bench of Tribunal. The Gujarat High Court upheld the order of Tribunal and held that the same did not require any interference and confirmed the disallowance @10% of bogus purchases. In the case of Jagdish

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. M/S. ULTRATECH TRANSMISSION PVT. LTD, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

20 per cent on account of unexplained purchases. The Tribunal further reduced said disallowance to 10 per cent of purchases relying on decision of coordinate bench of Tribunal. The Gujarat High Court upheld the order of Tribunal and held that the same did not require any interference and confirmed the disallowance @10% of bogus purchases. In the case of Jagdish

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