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

4. Alternatively, and without prejudice, the estimation of profit at the rate of 6% is highly excessive and does not reflect the real income earned of the appellant. 5. Both the lower authorities have erred in not granting set off of the profit already declared in the return of income on alleged bogus purchases against the estimated profit. 6. Both

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

4. Alternatively, and without prejudice, the estimation of profit at the rate of 6% is highly excessive and does not reflect the real income earned of the appellant. 5. Both the lower authorities have erred in not granting set off of the profit already declared in the return of income on alleged bogus purchases against the estimated profit. 6. Both

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

4. Alternatively, and without prejudice, the estimation of profit at the rate of 6% is highly excessive and does not reflect the real income earned of the appellant. 5. Both the lower authorities have erred in not granting set off of the profit already declared in the return of income on alleged bogus purchases against the estimated profit. 6. Both

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

250 Taxman 22) (SC) would not apply to facts of the instant the\ncase.\n6.2 In the case of Pr. CIT Vs Surya Impex (2023) (148 taxmann.com 154) (Gujarat),\nAO had received report from Investigation Wing that assessee-firm received\naccommodation entries in form of bogus purchases from Shri Bhanwarlal Jain\nGroup. 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

250 Taxman 22) (SC) would not apply to facts of the instant the\ncase.\n6.2 In the case of Pr. CIT Vs Surya Impex (2023) (148 taxmann.com 154) (Gujarat),\nAO had received report from Investigation Wing that assessee-firm received\naccommodation entries in form of bogus purchases from Shri Bhanwarlal Jain\nGroup. However, assessee filed detailed evidence consisting of details

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 CC 2(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. AISHA DHIRAJ GOGIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result: 50. To summarize the final outcome:

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha["ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" एवं "ी नरे" साद िस!ा, लेखा सद" के सम#।]

purchased at the cost of Rs. 9,41,250/- on 02.01.2015 and subsequently sold on 20.06.2017 for Rs. 14,41,250/-. It was submitted that these transactions have been carried out at recognized stock exchange and after payment of security transaction tax (STT). The Ld. AR invited the attention on the copy of Share Certificate, D-Mat statements, contract notes

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

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

section 147 by making an addition of Rs. 37,39,250/- treating the same as bogus purchases, and assessed the total income at Rs. 1,15,55,22,678/- vide order dated 29.03.2022. 4

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

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, without appreciating the fact that the assessee

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

4– contention of the assessee was that the Assessing Officer had erred in treating the 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

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

4– contention of the assessee was that the Assessing Officer had erred in treating the 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

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

4– contention of the assessee was that the Assessing Officer had erred in treating the 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

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

4– contention of the assessee was that the Assessing Officer had erred in treating the 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

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