SHRI BHUPENDRA S. CHOKSHI,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1 (2), , VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year : 2007-08 Shri Bhupendra S. Chokshi Dcit, Cir.1(2) Prop: S. Kanjibhai Jewellers Vs Vadodara. Sb-35-36, Siddarth Complex Rc Dutt Road Vadodara 390 005 Pan : Abfpc 5333C

section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short), dated 30.5.2017 pertaining to Asst.Year 2007-03. 2. This is a recalled matter. In the first round of litigation, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed ex parte by the Tribunal by order dated 3.4.2019 for want of prosecution. However, liberty was given to the assessee

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

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

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

250 taxmann.com 22 (SC) and of the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Pratibha Structural Ltd. Vs. DCIT Central Circle-27 & 25 Mumbai in ITA NO. 3874/Mum/2015 and Ors, dated 10-04-2019 in this regard. Copies of all the orders was placed before us. 7. He further contended that in any case disallowance of bogus expenses was restricted

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

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

250 taxmann.com 22 (SC) and of the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Pratibha Structural Ltd. Vs. DCIT Central Circle-27 & 25 Mumbai in ITA NO. 3874/Mum/2015 and Ors, dated 10-04-2019 in this regard. Copies of all the orders was placed before us. 7. He further contended that in any case disallowance of bogus expenses was restricted

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

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

250 taxmann.com 22 (SC) and of the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Pratibha Structural Ltd. Vs. DCIT Central Circle-27 & 25 Mumbai in ITA NO. 3874/Mum/2015 and Ors, dated 10-04-2019 in this regard. Copies of all the orders was placed before us. 7. He further contended that in any case disallowance of bogus expenses was restricted

SAKET M JAINI(HUF),AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-5, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 579/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Saket M. Jain (Huf), The Pr. Commissioner Of 403, 3Rd Eye Two, Vs. Income Tax-2, Nr. Joyalukkas Show Room, Ahmedabad. Opp. Parimal Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad.

bogus, the source of credits shown in the books of account/bank account utilized for the purchase should have been treated unexplained credits u/s.68 of the Act as the source was not explained and substantiated by the assessee and hence there is underassessment of income of Rs.3,92,59,500/-. 4. The Learned Comm. of Income Tax, Ahmedabad -5 has erred

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

SHRI KIRTIKUMAR VASANTBHAI THAKKAR,,PATAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, PATAN

In the result, both the grounds of the appeal of the assessee are dismissed

section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, learned CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining additions of Rs. 5,09,032 out of I.T.A No. 3042/Ahd/2014

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