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

purchases.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "147", "148", "143(3)", "145(3)", "250", "234A", "234B", "234C", "234D", "270A" ], "issues": "Whether the addition made by the AO based on a high GP rate on alleged bogus

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

purchases is not sustainable when sales are accepted and stock is undisturbed, and that the GP rate should be industry-consistent.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "147", "145(3)", "250", "270A", "234A", "234B", "234C", "234D" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) was justified in restricting the addition made by the AO on account of alleged bogus

JITENDRA RAJKUMAR AGARWAL (PROPRIETOR OF SHRI SHIV SHAKTI ENTERPRISE),AHMEDABAD vs. ASESSMENT UNIT, IT DEPARTMENT JURIS. AO- THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

bogus, the corresponding sales made by the Appellant against the said purchase should also be reduced from the total income of the Appellant, and if at all, the addition is to be sustained, the same can only be in respect of the gross profit margin of the Appellant on the said transaction. It is submitted that the learned CIT(Appeals

SHITAL VIPULKUMAR DHOLAKIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

bogus transactions is misplaced and cannot form the sole basis\nfor invoking disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act.\n3.4 Having heard the rival contentions and upon a careful examination\nof the assessment order and the appellate order passed by the learned\nCIT(A), it emerges that the core issue in controversy pertains to the\nassessee's failure

SHRI NILESH RAMESHCHANDRA SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Royshri Nilesh Rameshchandra Shah Vs. Dcit Prop: Shagun Art, 8, Ram Shyam Circle-6(1), Apartment, Nr. L. G. Hospital, Ahmedabad Maninagar, Ahmedabad-380008 [Pan No. Afqps3070R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Karan Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. Dr 04/10/2021 Date Of Hearing: Date Of Pronouncement: 05/10/2021 O R D E R

bogus purchases – Rs. 1,28,53,148/-. ii) Charging of interest under Section 234A, 23B & 234C of the Act. iii) Penalty

ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MAHESHWARI SALES CORPORATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1306/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Ito Maheshwari Sales Corporation बनाम/ Ward-4(2)(3) C-111, Ganesh Meridin V/S. Ahmedabad Nr.Sola Bridge, Sola Ahmedabad-380 058 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aalfm 4917 H (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 11/04/2025, Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-2019. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Ito Vs. Maheshwari Sales Corporation Asst. Year : 2018-19

bogus sales aggregating Rs. 63,84,998/-. Consequently, the said sum was treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 4. In appeal before CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was based solely on suspicion and general findings of the Investigation

NIDHIBEN MRUGESHKUMAR SHAH,ANAND vs. THE ACIT, (OSD), WARD-5, ANAND

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

234C was\nlevied, demand notice was issued, and penalty proceedings under\nsection 271(1)(c) were separately initiated.\n3.3 The assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A). In appeal before\nthe Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee raised\ngrounds challenging the validity of the reopening as well as the\naddition of Rs. 10,00,100/- sustained by the Assessing

CHIRAG ISHWARBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(6), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1182 & 1192/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Chirag Ishwarbhai Patel, I.T.O., 49 Dharamanth Prabhu Society, Vs. Ward-3(3)(6), Near Adishawar Society, Ahmedabad. Nikol Road, Naroda, Ahmedabad.

234C and 234D of the Act s to be computed as per law and facts on the record. 4. That your appellant craves a leave to add, alter or amend any grounds at the time of hearing. 3. The first issue raised by the Assessee is that the Ld. CIT-A erred in holding the assessment framed under section

CHIRAG ISHWARBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1182 & 1192/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Chirag Ishwarbhai Patel, I.T.O., 49 Dharamanth Prabhu Society, Vs. Ward-3(3)(6), Near Adishawar Society, Ahmedabad. Nikol Road, Naroda, Ahmedabad.

234C and 234D of the Act s to be computed as per law and facts on the record. 4. That your appellant craves a leave to add, alter or amend any grounds at the time of hearing. 3. The first issue raised by the Assessee is that the Ld. CIT-A erred in holding the assessment framed under section

DIPAKKUMAR PUSHKARRAY VYAS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2012-13

sections i.e. 234A, 234B,234C and 234D deserves to be deleted. I.T.A No. 105/Ahd/2025 Dipakkumar Pushkarray Vyas, A.Y. 2012-13 [22] That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal It is therefore prayed that the addition of Rs.41,99,500/- made by the Assessing officer should be deleted.” 3. The assessee filed

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

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961\n(hereinafter referred to as the “Act\") and relates to Assessment\nYear (A.Y.) 2017-18.\nITA No. 928/Ahd/2025 [Kalpanaben\nVadilal Shah vs.ITO] A.Y. 2017-18\n-2-\n1.\nThe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, has erred\nin law and on facts while upholding the order passed by\nassessing officer

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, appeal I.T

bogus payment to them. In our case the payments are not in dispute and we have actually made payment of the expenditure. Reliance is also placed on the decision of ITAT Jaipur in case of Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. ITO (TDS) wherein the said views have affirmed by the Tribunal. Hence the provisions of section

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD.,, BARODA

In the result, appeal I.T

bogus payment to them. In our case the payments are not in dispute and we have actually made payment of the expenditure. Reliance is also placed on the decision of ITAT Jaipur in case of Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. ITO (TDS) wherein the said views have affirmed by the Tribunal. Hence the provisions of section

SOHIL ABDULKADARBHAI PIRWANI,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamblesohil Abdulkadarbhai Pirwani, Income Tax Officer, Vs. 31 Adamjinagar Nari Cross Ward-1(8), Road, Bhavnagar. Vartej Bhavnagar, Bhavnagar-364002. Gujarat. [Pan :Ahopp6706 D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mohit Balani, Ar Respondent By: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.09.2025

Section 144B of the Act. 4. The Learned CIT(A) erred in law by failing to consider that the Ld. AO did not appreciate or consider various pieces of evidence and supporting documents available on record during the assessment proceedings. Further, the Ld. AO failed to properly analyze the relevant facts and legal provisions in the correct perspective and legal

LKS BULLION (IMPORT AND EXPORT) PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.382/Ahd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 L.K.S. Bullion (Import & The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Export) Pvt.Ltd. Ward-2(1)(3) 368, Lks House, Ahmedabad – 380 014 V/S. Khetarpal-Ni-Pole Manek Chowk Ahmedabad -380 001 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacl 7369 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 27/08/2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 18/12/2017 By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income L.K.S. Bullion (Import & Export) Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2010-11

234C & 234D of the Act is unjustified. L.K.S. Bullion (Import and Export) Pvt.Ltd. vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2010-11 5 7. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” On Ground No. 1 5. During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. Sr.Counsel for the assessee, took us through the detailed submission and order

JAS INFRASPACE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

234C & 234D of the Act is unjustified. 10. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act is unjustified. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.” 49. The first issue raised

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JAS INFRA SPACE PRIVATE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

234C & 234D of the Act is unjustified. 10. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act is unjustified. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.” 49. The first issue raised

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JAS INFRA SPACE PRIVATE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

234C & 234D of the Act is unjustified. 10. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act is unjustified. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.” 49. The first issue raised

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JAS INFRASPACE PRIVATE LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

234C & 234D of the Act is unjustified. 10. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act is unjustified. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.” 49. The first issue raised