THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT TERCE LABORATORIES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

section 131 and statement was recorded. The Assessment Officer came to the inference that purchases amounting to Rs. 1,68,48,663/- are bogus and he added this amount in the computation of the assessee company's income. • - 2.1 Being aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred appeal before CIT(Appeals) but the said appeal came to be dismissed

THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT TERCE LABORATORIES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

section 131 and statement was recorded. The Assessment Officer came to the inference that purchases amounting to Rs. 1,68,48,663/- are bogus and he added this amount in the computation of the assessee company's income. • - 2.1 Being aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred appeal before CIT(Appeals) but the said appeal came to be dismissed

SHRI ATULBHAI BABUBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-10,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountantmember & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Purchase Accounts 11,29,170.00 Sales Accounts 11,24,130.00 Futures & Options Futures & Options 11,29,170.00 11,24,130.00 Puchase A/c. Sales A/c. 8.3. From the above there remains no dispute to the fact that the assessee carried on its business activities in the immediate previous assessment year i.e. 2006-07 and in A.Y. 2010-11 but in between

SHRI ATUL BABUBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT.,RANGE-10,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountantmember & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Purchase Accounts 11,29,170.00 Sales Accounts 11,24,130.00 Futures & Options Futures & Options 11,29,170.00 11,24,130.00 Puchase A/c. Sales A/c. 8.3. From the above there remains no dispute to the fact that the assessee carried on its business activities in the immediate previous assessment year i.e. 2006-07 and in A.Y. 2010-11 but in between

SHRI ATULBHAI BABULAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-11,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountantmember & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Purchase Accounts 11,29,170.00 Sales Accounts 11,24,130.00 Futures & Options Futures & Options 11,29,170.00 11,24,130.00 Puchase A/c. Sales A/c. 8.3. From the above there remains no dispute to the fact that the assessee carried on its business activities in the immediate previous assessment year i.e. 2006-07 and in A.Y. 2010-11 but in between

BHAGAT MARKETING PVT LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, in light of the above observations and the judicial precedents on the subject, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 263 of the Act and submitted that the principal CIT has itself noted the assertion of the assessee is that the assessee company has never purchased material from M/s. Varia Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, when the contention of the assessee has all throughout been that it has not made any purchases from M/s. Varia Aluminium Pvt. Ltd., then there

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

24, 2010, wherein the provision of section 271(1)(c) has been dealt with as under: Section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961-Penalty for concealment of income - Whether so long as assessee has not concealed any material fact or any factual information given by him has not been found to be incorrect, he will

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 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

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

LEELA GREENSHIP RECYCLING PVT. LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR

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

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

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

24. The next issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 5 is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the order of the AO by treating the purchases of Rs. 51,712/- as bogus in nature. 25. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee has claimed certain expenses by way of purchase of the material

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. , BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

24. The next issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 5 is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the order of the AO by treating the purchases of Rs. 51,712/- as bogus in nature. 25. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee has claimed certain expenses by way of purchase of the material

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

24. The next issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 5 is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the order of the AO by treating the purchases of Rs. 51,712/- as bogus in nature. 25. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee has claimed certain expenses by way of purchase of the material

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. , BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

24. The next issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 5 is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the order of the AO by treating the purchases of Rs. 51,712/- as bogus in nature. 25. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee has claimed certain expenses by way of purchase of the material

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

purchases may be disallowed, keeping into consideration the profit offered to tax by the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee had calculated NP at 16.09% of the Turnover. Accordingly, considering the observations made by the Ld. Assessing Officer in assessment order regarding the nature of sub-contracting expenses and looking into the totality of facts of the instant