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

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

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

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

ADITI THAPAR ,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for de- novo adjudication in the interest of justice

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234C are unjustified. 8. Initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from salary, rent, long-term capital gains and other sources. The assessee filed her return of income for the Assessment Year 2014-15 declaring total income

ARVIND SHASHANK HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

purchase and sale of shares (penny stock)\nFurther, the assessee has not shown any capital gain/loss in this ITR\nnor shown any business earnings. The information articulates the fact that\nthe assessee indeed made bogus transactions by trading in penny scrip\nAricent Infra Ltd. in order to veil the amount from being taxed legitimately.\nTherefore, it is case where

YOGESH HARGOVINDBHAI JOSHI L/H OF BHAVNABEN Y. JOSHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar, Vice- & Ms.Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2012-13 Yogesh Hargovindbhai Joshi Vs. The Ito, Ward-6(1)(1) L/H. Of Bhavnaben Y. Joshi Ahmedabad. 8, Manav Pursusharth Society Opp: Hirabhai Tower Uttamnagar, Maninagar Pan : Adupj 2208 C (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Parin Shah, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

234C when no such interest is leviable. The appellant denies its liability to pay interest. 4. The assessee has filed return of income under section 139 of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13 on 20.7.2012 declaring total income at Rs.66,12,118/-. As per the survey conducted by Directorate of Income-tax (Investigation), Unit-2(3), Kolkatta

AMOD STEEL PROCESSORS,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(3), VADODARA (NOW DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1)), VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2014-15. I.T.A No. 1123/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 2 Amod Steel Processors vs. DCIT 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a firm engaged in the business of manufacturing of Electrical Lamination Stamping, Magnetic