THE ACIT, CIRCLE-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 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

27-11-2017 आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2007-08, arises from order of the CIT(A), Gandhinagar dated 14-07-2014, in proceedings under 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

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

bogus purchases, resulting in what was deemed an erroneous and prejudicial order. On February 16, 2024, a notice under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act was issued by PCIT to the assesse seeking justification for why the assessment order dated March 27

SHRI SANDEEPKUMAR S. CHANDAK,,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, S.K. WARD-1,, HIMATNAGAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 133(6) of the Act on making the payment of the requisite fees. 5.8 The payment against the purchases was not made in any of the case during the year under consideration. As such the payment was made in the subsequent year. In view of the above and after considering the information received from the Maharashtra sales tax department

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. PANKAJ COTTON INDUSTRIES, PATAN

27-09-2011. The assessee on the other hand pleads that the very issue in case of M/s Vishal Traders itself (supra) stands adjudicated qua the impugned assessment year in case of M/s Gujarat Ambuza Ltd. vs. ACIT in IT(SS)A 124/Ahd/2012 decided on 17-04-2013 wherein a co-ordinate bench has disallowed identical purchases to the extent

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

section 69C on basis of GP ratio. In the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. CIT[2015] 58 taxmann.com 44 (Gujarat), the at High Court held that Assessee inflated expenditure by showing higher purchase price through fictitious invoices in name of 33 fictitious parties, Tribunal was justified in disallowing 25 per cent of purchase price. In the case of Vijay

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

section 69C on basis of GP ratio. In the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. CIT[2015] 58 taxmann.com 44 (Gujarat), the at High Court held that Assessee inflated expenditure by showing higher purchase price through fictitious invoices in name of 33 fictitious parties, Tribunal was justified in disallowing 25 per cent of purchase price. In the case of Vijay

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

section 69C on basis of GP ratio. In the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. CIT[2015] 58 taxmann.com 44 (Gujarat), the at High Court held that Assessee inflated expenditure by showing higher purchase price through fictitious invoices in name of 33 fictitious parties, Tribunal was justified in disallowing 25 per cent of purchase price. In the case of Vijay

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. ULTRA TECH TRANSMISSION,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

section 69C on basis of GP ratio. In the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. CIT[2015] 58 taxmann.com 44 (Gujarat), the at High Court held that Assessee inflated expenditure by showing higher purchase price through fictitious invoices in name of 33 fictitious parties, Tribunal was justified in disallowing 25 per cent of purchase price. In the case of Vijay

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. M/S. ULTRATECH TRANSMISSION PVT. LTD, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

section 69C on basis of GP ratio. In the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. CIT[2015] 58 taxmann.com 44 (Gujarat), the at High Court held that Assessee inflated expenditure by showing higher purchase price through fictitious invoices in name of 33 fictitious parties, Tribunal was justified in disallowing 25 per cent of purchase price. In the case of Vijay

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

bogus purchases had been set aside in entirety by the Hon’ble ITAT for fresh adjudication and therefore the earlier relief granted by the CIT(A) stood merged with the order of the Tribunal. It was observed that the Assessing Officer had rightly re-examined the entire issue in accordance with the directions of the ITAT and hence the contention

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

bogus purchases had been set aside in entirety by the Hon’ble ITAT for fresh adjudication and therefore the earlier relief granted by the CIT(A) stood merged with the order of the Tribunal. It was observed that the Assessing Officer had rightly re-examined the entire issue in accordance with the directions of the ITAT and hence the contention

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

bogus purchases had been set aside in entirety by the Hon’ble ITAT for fresh adjudication and therefore the earlier relief granted by the CIT(A) stood merged with the order of the Tribunal. It was observed that the Assessing Officer had rightly re-examined the entire issue in accordance with the directions of the ITAT and hence the contention

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

bogus purchases had been set aside in entirety by the Hon’ble ITAT for fresh adjudication and therefore the earlier relief granted by the CIT(A) stood merged with the order of the Tribunal. It was observed that the Assessing Officer had rightly re-examined the entire issue in accordance with the directions of the ITAT and hence the contention

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DEVRAJ INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all three appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanisl.

purchases of Rs. 91,18,800/- and bogus expenditure of Rs. 26,67,267/-. While computing taxable income under the head “Income from Business or Profession” the Ld. AO made disallowance of these items and consequently the taxable profit of business was enhanced to that extent. However the Ld. AO did not allow deduction

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DEVRAJ INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all three appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanisl.

purchases of Rs. 91,18,800/- and bogus expenditure of Rs. 26,67,267/-. While computing taxable income under the head “Income from Business or Profession” the Ld. AO made disallowance of these items and consequently the taxable profit of business was enhanced to that extent. However the Ld. AO did not allow deduction

DCIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ALPESHKUMAR C.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1908/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive In Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. Pan: Aeapp9489G

bogus as entire quantity was not sold. Only profit margin embedded in such purchases would be subject to tax and not entire purchases, held in the order." In view of ratio laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court the addition was justified on account of suppression of the contract receipts if only but only to the extent of profit

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. MOHAMMEDARIF IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

bogus is essentially a question of fact. The Tribunal having examined the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the assessee did purchase the cloth and sell the finished goods. In that view of the matter, as natural corollary, not the entire amount covered under such purchase, but the profit element embedded therein would be subject to tax. This