THE JT.CIT, CIRCLE-6(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI NILESH RAMESHCHANDRA SHAH,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2010-11. I.T.A No. 267/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 2 Jt. CIT Vs. Shri Nilesh Rameshchandra Shah 2. The Registry has noted that there is a delay of 8 days in filing the above appeal by the Revenue

SHRI BALDEVBHAI ATMARAM PATEL,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

purchase of plot for construction of one new asset i.e. residential house, he is not entitled to exemption for another house u/s 54F of the Act, still appellant has claimed it in Return of Income which prove beyond doubt that appellant has willfully claimed higher exemption which are not provided in Income tax Act. (iii) The appellant has claimed cost

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DINESHCHANDRA R AGRAWAL INFRACON PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 85/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14

purchases which were not disputed. It is the payment to the creditors which have been held as bogus in the statement furnished under Section 132(4) of the Act. Thus, it can be concluded that the claim of the assessee was inaccurate. Accordingly, it appears that the penalty provisions under Section 271

U.B. COTTON PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2008-09 U.B. Cotton P.Ltd. Dcit, Cir.4(1)(1) Indian Globe Chamber Vs Ahmedabad. 7Th Floor, 142 Wh Marg, Fort Mumbai 400 001. Pan : Aaacu 5526 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Written Submissions Revenue By : Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/05/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/05/2022 आदेश/O R D E R

271(l)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are also initiated separately on the unproved/bogus purchases for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee company.” 3. Aggrieved against this order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A)-8, Ahmedabad. In the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee filed written submissions before the ld.CIT(A) stating that

GUJARAT VAIBHAV PUBLICATIONS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

bogus and 15% of the purchases was considered as income of the assessee and accordingly an addition of Rs.43,70,583/- was made. No transaction was found made with the other party M/s. A.M. Enterprise during the year. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act on 27.12.2019 at total income of Rs.42

GUJARAT VAIBHAV PUBLICATIONS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

bogus and 15% of the purchases was considered as income of the assessee and accordingly an addition of Rs.43,70,583/- was made. No transaction was found made with the other party M/s. A.M. Enterprise during the year. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act on 27.12.2019 at total income of Rs.42

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

section 153A of the Act is to be treated as return\nfiled under section 139(1) of the Act. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee\nhas borrowed this proposition to contend that accordingly fresh\nclaims can be made in returns filed u/s 153A of the Act. But, we find,\nthat these decisions have been rendered while addressing completely\ndifferent issue, relating

SHRI MUKESH HARJIBHAI PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Mukesh Harjibhai Patel Acit, Cir.5(3) 9, Malhar Bungalows Vs Ahmedabad. Shilaj Nandoli Road Kalol, Gandhinagar. Pan : Abvp P9561 H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Written Submissions Revenue By : Shri J.L. Bhatia, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 8.6.2018 In Cit(A)-5/Acit Cir.5(3)/10028/2017-18 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-5, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] Relating To The Assessment Year 2010-11 Against Confirmation Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” For Short).

bogus purchases to Rs.11,20,000/- on estimate basis, and that order has attained finality. Against the estimation of income, the ld.AO has levied penalty under section 271

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SANJAY PRATAPRAI MEHTA, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

271(1)(c) of the Act. The Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal:- 2. “1. In the facts and on the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing to delete the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) holding that the issue has been decided in favour of appellant by the Hon’ble ITAT, consequential penalty u/s.271

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-6,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ZODIAC EICHER,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

purchases shown by the assessee were bogus. Subsequently the assessee has furnished merely affidavits of the 21 persons and 2 sub- dealers and could not produce any person/party for examination to controvert the findings of the assessing officer. Section 271

MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS PVE. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is Dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 641/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1311/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Mobile Telecommunications Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., C/O. Ambalal M. Shah & Co., Vs. Circle-2(1)(2), Chartered Accountants, Baroda. 108, Bell-E-Vista Complex, Race Course Chakli Circle, Vadodara-390007. Pan: Aaccm2659J

bogus and unexplained purchases out of total disallowance of purchases made by AO at Rs.5,24,91,187/-. The AO is accordingly directed to delete the balance amount of disallowance out of the purchases. Ground No.5 thus, stands partly allowed. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 4.4 Although the appellant has not raised any ground against the disallowance made u/s 14A amounting to Rs.3

MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is Dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 641/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1311/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Mobile Telecommunications Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., C/O. Ambalal M. Shah & Co., Vs. Circle-2(1)(2), Chartered Accountants, Baroda. 108, Bell-E-Vista Complex, Race Course Chakli Circle, Vadodara-390007. Pan: Aaccm2659J

bogus and unexplained purchases out of total disallowance of purchases made by AO at Rs.5,24,91,187/-. The AO is accordingly directed to delete the balance amount of disallowance out of the purchases. Ground No.5 thus, stands partly allowed. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 4.4 Although the appellant has not raised any ground against the disallowance made u/s 14A amounting to Rs.3

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

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

SMT. REKHA ANIL DUGGAD,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumar

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act”). 2. The assessee before us are the husband and wife engaged in the business of trade in brass and Proprietors of two different firms wherein common disallowances were been made on account of bogus purchases

M/S. WORLD TRADE IMPEX LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, BARODA

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

bogus. Furthermore, the assessee cannot ITA nos.1580/AHD/2016 & 639/Ahd//2012 A.Y. 2003-04 14 be made subject to the addition if the party does not respond to the notice issued by the revenue. As such the revenue has been given ample power under the statute for collecting the information from the concerned party. In the present case, the AO should have