JT. CIT (OSD), CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. PRADIP OVERSEAS LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

2,83,77,87,618/- as not reliable and paper purchases. The A.O. concluded that the benefit derived by the assessee from, such bogus circular paper purchase bills can be around 5% and disallowed Rs. 14,18,89,380/- of purchases. 4.3.1 In assessment proceedings and before me in appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that: (i) In circular trading, there

PATEL KENWOOD PRIVATE LIMITED,ANKLESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), 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 Years 2017-18 and 2018-19. Since common issue is involved in both the appeals, the same are disposed of by this common order. I.T.A Nos. 60 & 61/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No 2 Patel Kenwood

PATEL KENWOOD PRIVATE LIMITED,ANKLESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), 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 Years 2017-18 and 2018-19. Since common issue is involved in both the appeals, the same are disposed of by this common order. I.T.A Nos. 60 & 61/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No 2 Patel Kenwood

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. REKHA INDRAVADAN CHOKSHI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Department’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

249% increase. Further, the assessing officer observed that the assessee had nominal cash sales of Rs.7,46,179/- from 01.04.2016 to 30.09.2016 and the cash sales which was made during the period 22.10.2016 to 08.11.2016 reached an unimaginable amount of Rs.31,28,37,385/- (against cash sales of Rs.3,11,82,382/- for the same period in the immediately preceding

REKHABEN INDRAVADAN CHOKSHI,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-5(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Department’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

249% increase. Further, the assessing officer observed that the assessee had nominal cash sales of Rs.7,46,179/- from 01.04.2016 to 30.09.2016 and the cash sales which was made during the period 22.10.2016 to 08.11.2016 reached an unimaginable amount of Rs.31,28,37,385/- (against cash sales of Rs.3,11,82,382/- for the same period in the immediately preceding

THE ACIT,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.42,48,117/- (i.e. 25%) out of total purchases of Rs.1,69,92,471/-. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts of the case, in confirming disallowance of Rs.14,62,818/- being irrecoverable deposits written off in books of account in respect of Earnest Money Deposit, Advance

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.42,48,117/- (i.e. 25%) out of total purchases of Rs.1,69,92,471/-. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts of the case, in confirming disallowance of Rs.14,62,818/- being irrecoverable deposits written off in books of account in respect of Earnest Money Deposit, Advance

AMBAR RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

2. The Lrd. Appellant Authority has erred in law in dismissing the appeal of the appellant and confirmed the order of the assessing authority with regard to additions of Rs. 4,82,10,278/- made u/s. 69C r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act towards bogus purchases. The action of the appellant authority and the AO for passing the assessment

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

249, requirements of Schedule VI as well as the provisions of AS-13 on investment. The assessee has maintained only one portfolio. It is further pleaded that during the year there was speculative loss of Rs.0.67 lakhs and Rs.1.08 lakhs for the Asstt.year 2005-06 and 2008-09 respectively. Such small amount involving only six transactions should not be determining

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMEICALS LTD,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

249, requirements of Schedule VI as well as the provisions of AS-13 on investment. The assessee has maintained only one portfolio. It is further pleaded that during the year there was speculative loss of Rs.0.67 lakhs and Rs.1.08 lakhs for the Asstt.year 2005-06 and 2008-09 respectively. Such small amount involving only six transactions should not be determining

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

249, requirements of Schedule VI as well as the provisions of AS-13 on investment. The assessee has maintained only one portfolio. It is further pleaded that during the year there was speculative loss of Rs.0.67 lakhs and Rs.1.08 lakhs for the Asstt.year 2005-06 and 2008-09 respectively. Such small amount involving only six transactions should not be determining

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

249, requirements of Schedule VI as well as the provisions of AS-13 on investment. The assessee has maintained only one portfolio. It is further pleaded that during the year there was speculative loss of Rs.0.67 lakhs and Rs.1.08 lakhs for the Asstt.year 2005-06 and 2008-09 respectively. Such small amount involving only six transactions should not be determining

THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMEICALS LTD, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

249, requirements of Schedule VI as well as the provisions of AS-13 on investment. The assessee has maintained only one portfolio. It is further pleaded that during the year there was speculative loss of Rs.0.67 lakhs and Rs.1.08 lakhs for the Asstt.year 2005-06 and 2008-09 respectively. Such small amount involving only six transactions should not be determining

THA ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA vs. M/S. GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

249, requirements of Schedule VI as well as the provisions of AS-13 on investment. The assessee has maintained only one portfolio. It is further pleaded that during the year there was speculative loss of Rs.0.67 lakhs and Rs.1.08 lakhs for the Asstt.year 2005-06 and 2008-09 respectively. Such small amount involving only six transactions should not be determining

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LTD.,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

249, requirements of Schedule VI as well as the provisions of AS-13 on investment. The assessee has maintained only one portfolio. It is further pleaded that during the year there was speculative loss of Rs.0.67 lakhs and Rs.1.08 lakhs for the Asstt.year 2005-06 and 2008-09 respectively. Such small amount involving only six transactions should not be determining

SHRI DIPAKKUMAR KESHAVLAL PATEL,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is thus allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

bogus purchase because payment of purchase was fulfilled next year. During the course of the assessment proceedings the document submitted was fully accepted by the income tax officer and no aby defects found in those documents. It is decided in the following cases that assessee offered an income to be tax in this circumstances no penalty is leviable

SHRI BALDEVBHAI ATMARAM PATEL,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

2 years after the date of ITA Nos.1911/Ahd/2015 Shri Baldevbhai Atmaram Patel vs. DCIT Asst.Year – 2011-12 transfer of such an asset or in the construction of one residential house within 3 years from the date of such transfer. However, such benefit is not available in the event the assessee is having one house property other than the new asset

AANYA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rifaur Rahman

purchased and where such items were accounted for in books had not been explained by Vitragbhai D. Dharu. This clearly proves that there was no sale/purchase transaction between them and cash was deposited and rotated to the books of the assessee. Therefore, creditworthiness of the depositor is treated as unexplained in absence of evidence supporting above mentioned transaction