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 by the assessee, stand dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

250 Taxman 22) (SC) would not apply to facts of the instant the case. 6.2 In the case of Pr. CIT Vs Surya Impex (2023) (148 taxmann.com 154) (Gujarat), AO had received report from Investigation Wing that assessee-firm received accommodation entries in form of bogus purchases from Shri Bhanwarlal Jain Group. However, assessee filed detailed evidence consisting of details

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR vs. MADHAV COPPER LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three by the assessee, stand dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

250 Taxman 22) (SC) would not apply to facts of the instant the case. 6.2 In the case of Pr. CIT Vs Surya Impex (2023) (148 taxmann.com 154) (Gujarat), AO had received report from Investigation Wing that assessee-firm received accommodation entries in form of bogus purchases from Shri Bhanwarlal Jain Group. However, assessee filed detailed evidence consisting of details

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR vs. MADHAV COPPER LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three by the assessee, stand dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

250 Taxman 22) (SC) would not apply to facts of the instant the case. 6.2 In the case of Pr. CIT Vs Surya Impex (2023) (148 taxmann.com 154) (Gujarat), AO had received report from Investigation Wing that assessee-firm received accommodation entries in form of bogus purchases from Shri Bhanwarlal Jain Group. However, assessee filed detailed evidence consisting of details

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

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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) pertaining to Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 2. It was common ground that one of the issues involved in both the appeals arose in the background of identical facts. Therefore, both the appeals were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this

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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) pertaining to Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 2. It was common ground that one of the issues involved in both the appeals arose in the background of identical facts. Therefore, both the appeals were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this

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

250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], for the Assessment Year 2018–19. The said appellate order arises from the assessment order dated 09.03.2023 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act, whereby the AO made an addition of Rs. 1,40,03,670/- under section

SADBHAV ENGINEERING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed\nand that of the Revenue are dismissed

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act\" for short) for the\n assessment years 2012-13 to 2018-19.\n2. The present appeals, it was stated, arose on account of the same\ncause of action i.e. search action undertaken on the assessee in terms\nof section 132 of the Act, resulting in assessment being framed u/s\n143

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

250 of the Income-\ntax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act"], for the Assessment Year\n2018–19. The said appellate order arises from the assessment order dated\n09.03.2023 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 147 read with\nsection 144B of the Act, whereby the AO made an addition of Rs.\n1,40,03,670/- under section

SANKET RAMNIKLAL JOISAR,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX WARD 1(2)(1), AHD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above\nterms

bogus purchases were unjustified. The assessee had demonstrated that no purchases were made from the identified parties, a fact admitted by the AO.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 145 of Income Tax Act, 1961", "Section 142(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961", "Section 250

RAJENDRAKUMAR CHHANALAL SHAH,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, PATAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22. 2. The Assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:- “1. That on facts, in law, and on evidence on record, the learned NFAC has grievously erred in confirming the disallowance @ 2% (out of 3.92% made

CONCORD BIOTECH LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

purchases shown by the assessee from Umiya Trading Company were bogus. Concord Biotech Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2016-17 - 3– Accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed the reassessment under section 147 by making an addition of Rs. 37,39,250

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

purchases as bogus without properly appreciating the facts and evidences on record. It was further contended that the Assessing Officer had relied upon statements of third parties and enquiries conducted under sections 131/133(6) of the Act without affording adequate opportunity of cross-examination and without furnishing copies of material relied upon. The assessee also challenged the addition

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

purchases as bogus without properly appreciating the facts and evidences on record. It was further contended that the Assessing Officer had relied upon statements of third parties and enquiries conducted under sections 131/133(6) of the Act without affording adequate opportunity of cross-examination and without furnishing copies of material relied upon. The assessee also challenged the addition

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

purchases as bogus without properly appreciating the facts and evidences on record. It was further contended that the Assessing Officer had relied upon statements of third parties and enquiries conducted under sections 131/133(6) of the Act without affording adequate opportunity of cross-examination and without furnishing copies of material relied upon. The assessee also challenged the addition

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

purchases as bogus without properly appreciating the facts and evidences on record. It was further contended that the Assessing Officer had relied upon statements of third parties and enquiries conducted under sections 131/133(6) of the Act without affording adequate opportunity of cross-examination and without furnishing copies of material relied upon. The assessee also challenged the addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR vs. RUDRA GLOBAL INFRA PRODUCTS LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2022-23. 2. The sole grievance of the Revenue reads as under:- “Whether the CIT (A) has erred in facts and law in deleting the addition of Rs. 41,71,10,137/- being non-genuine and bogus purchases

SHAILESHBHAI BHA vs. ANGBHAI CHAVDA,BHAVNAGARVS.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4) BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

bogus long term capital gains/bogus short term capital loss/bogus purchase loss etc. . Various incriminating documents were seized by Revenue during the course of search operations. Therefore, there was a reason to believe that the scrips of M/s. Divine Multimedia India Ltd., M/s. Diamant Infrastructure Ltd. and M/s VMS Industries Ltd. are not genuine. Shri Naresh Jain in his statement recorded