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

sections": [ "147", "148", "143(3)", "145(3)", "250", "234A", "234B", "234C", "234D", "270A" ], "issues": "Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting the assessee's books of account and applying a 12.5% GP rate on alleged bogus purchases

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

Section of AO’s Order 147 r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B 144B 144B Amount of Alleged Bogus 92,95,26,352/- 49,84,90,503/- 412,48,43,029/- Purchases added (Rs.) Gross Profit Rate Applied by AO 12.50% 12.50% 12.50% Addition Made

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

Section of AO’s Order 147 r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B 144B 144B Amount of Alleged Bogus 92,95,26,352/- 49,84,90,503/- 412,48,43,029/- Purchases added (Rs.) Gross Profit Rate Applied by AO 12.50% 12.50% 12.50% Addition Made

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

Section of AO’s Order 147 r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B 144B 144B Amount of Alleged Bogus 92,95,26,352/- 49,84,90,503/- 412,48,43,029/- Purchases added (Rs.) Gross Profit Rate Applied by AO 12.50% 12.50% 12.50% Addition Made

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

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

section 69C was factually and legally misplaced. However, while fully accepting the genuineness of the payments and noting that the sales have also been offered to tax, the learned CIT(A) took into account the possibility of inflation of purchases or involvement of accommodation bills to some extent and, therefore, proceeded to estimate the profit element embedded in such purchases

ALANG STEEL RECYCLING PRIVATE LIMITED,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalalang Steel Recycling The Dy. Cit-1, Private Limited Vs. Circle-1, Ground Floor, Bhavnagar – 364 001 Shop No.G-1 Sukun-1, Bhilwara Circle Bhavnagar – 364 001 [ Pan: Aamca 4837 A ] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue Represented By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr 08.12.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026

purchases of ₹77,61,745/- as bogus and disallowed the same under section 37 of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer assessed the total income at ₹88,37,215/- and initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.62/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Patel Kenwood Pvt.Ltd. The Ito बनाम/ Plot No.100 To 103 Ward-2(1)(1) V/S. Timber Market Vadodara Gidc Ankleshwar Ankleshwar – 393 002 Gujarat "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaccp 0220 G अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Nilisha Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ritesh Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

bogus purchases from M/s.Laxmi Enterprises. In view of the deletion of the Patel Kenwood Pvt.Ltd. vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2018-19 4 quantum addition, the penalty levied under section 270A

AIR WIND GREEN ENERGY LIMITED,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD -1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 69C of the Act while disallowing the bogus purchases made by the assessee. However, he went on to hold that since admittedly the assessee had taken bogus accommodation entry of purchases, the AO had erred in not initiating penalty proceedings u/s.270A(9) of the Act. Accordingly, he directed the AO to initiate penalty proceedings u/s.270A

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

PRECISION INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

purchases as non- genuine. 3. Both, AO & CIT(A), have erred in passing the impugned orders without properly appreciating facts of the case, submissions of the assessee and documentary evidences available on record in the correct perspective. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming levy of interest under section 234A/B/C/D

PRECISION INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

purchases as non- genuine. 3. Both, AO & CIT(A), have erred in passing the impugned orders without properly appreciating facts of the case, submissions of the assessee and documentary evidences available on record in the correct perspective. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming levy of interest under section 234A/B/C/D

GANDHINAGAR DISTRICT CO.OP.MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE GANDHINAGA, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

270A, 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the original return

KUSUMBEN RAJENDRAKUMAR SONI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

Section 270A for\nalleged misreporting of income is unwarranted, as\nthe\nappellant has disclosed all details and cooperated with the\nproceedings in good faith.\"\n3.\nThe solitary issue in the present appeal pertains to addition\nmade to the income of the assessee by treating the entire purchases\nas non-genuine amounting to Rs.5,21,27,915/-. The solitary\ncontention

KALPANABEN VADILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961\n(hereinafter referred to as the “Act\") and relates to Assessment\nYear (A.Y.) 2017-18.\nITA No. 928/Ahd/2025 [Kalpanaben\nVadilal Shah vs.ITO] A.Y. 2017-18\n-2-\n1.\nThe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, has erred\nin law and on facts while upholding the order passed by\nassessing officer

KAUSHAL PRAVINKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

bogus in nature.\n5. Similarly, in respect of the gift of Rs. 8,50,000/- claimed to have been\nreceived from the assessee's brother, it was also explained to have\noriginated from M/s Veer Chem. The AO found that the firm did not have\nsufficient cash balance to support such withdrawal and that the bank entries\ndid not correlate

ASHOK AMARNATH AGRAWAL,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

purchaser and completion of transaction. In some cases, the whole amount has been received in cash and then part cash has been returned to the tune of cheque payment received. On further perusal details/information (Para 8 of appraisal report of Kushal Group of Ahmedabad) received in respect of Kushal Limited, various other significant findings/observations point wise discussed as under

ASHOK AMARNATH AGRAWAL,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

purchaser and completion of transaction. In some cases, the whole amount has been received in cash and then part cash has been returned to the tune of cheque payment received. On further perusal details/information (Para 8 of appraisal report of Kushal Group of Ahmedabad) received in respect of Kushal Limited, various other significant findings/observations point wise discussed as under