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

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

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 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

WORLD TRADE IMPEX LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-4,, 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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, AHMEDABAD vs. RAJESHRI AVAS DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 758/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Ito Rajeshri Avas Developers बनाम/ Ward -3(1)(1), Ahmedabad Private Limited Vs. A-9, Anupam Colony, Lbs Road, Opp. Chirag Diamond, Bapunagar, Gujarat 380024 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr9139G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) None अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R.

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of bogus purchase. The assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was finalized

XCELRIS LABS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

271(1)(c)\nof the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the \"Act\")\nand relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11.\nITA No. 32/Ahd/2022 [Xcelris\nLabs Limited vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2010-11\n-2-\n2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:\n\"1.\nThe learned grossly erred in law and on facts of the case

MARUTI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), , AHMEDABAD

In the result, ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

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

bogus expenses by rejecting the books of accounts. On appeal against the assessment order, Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance and estimated to 7% of the profit instead of 40% disallowed by the A.O. 3. On further appeal, ITAT confirmed the order of Ld. CIT(A) by dismissing both Assessee and Revenue appeals. Thereafter the A.O. initiated penalty proceedings

ASHAPURA STONE INDUSTRIES,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3 NOW WARD-1, ANAND

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member 1. Ita No.27/Ahd/2024 2. Ita No.28/Ahd/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 (Respectively) Ashapura Stone Industries The Income Tax Officer Nh No.8, Nr. Geb Sub-Station Vs Ward-3 (Now Ward-1) Vasad – 388 306 (Gujarat) Anand Pan: Aaufa 6762 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.T. Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Pertain To Different Assessment Years, But Involve Common Issues (Except Quantum In Appeal) & Hence Are Being Decided Together For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. The Appeals Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) - [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2012-13 & 2013-14, Both Dated 16/11/2023, Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Passed For Respective Assessment Years By Assessing Officer

271(1)(c) may please be directed to be dropped. 5. Your appellant prays to add, amend, alter, modify or delete any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” ITA Nos.27 & 28/Ahd/2024 Ashapura Stone Industries vs. ITO Asst. Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 For AY 2013-14 The Learned CIT-Appeals has erred in law on facts in dismissing

ASHAPURA STONE INDUSTRIES,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3 NOW WARD-1, ANAND

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member 1. Ita No.27/Ahd/2024 2. Ita No.28/Ahd/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 (Respectively) Ashapura Stone Industries The Income Tax Officer Nh No.8, Nr. Geb Sub-Station Vs Ward-3 (Now Ward-1) Vasad – 388 306 (Gujarat) Anand Pan: Aaufa 6762 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.T. Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Pertain To Different Assessment Years, But Involve Common Issues (Except Quantum In Appeal) & Hence Are Being Decided Together For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. The Appeals Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) - [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2012-13 & 2013-14, Both Dated 16/11/2023, Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Passed For Respective Assessment Years By Assessing Officer

271(1)(c) may please be directed to be dropped. 5. Your appellant prays to add, amend, alter, modify or delete any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” ITA Nos.27 & 28/Ahd/2024 Ashapura Stone Industries vs. ITO Asst. Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 For AY 2013-14 The Learned CIT-Appeals has erred in law on facts in dismissing

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

bogus imports. From the investigations done here, it is seen that the account holders, in whose account cash deposits of more than Rs. 10 Crore was made and which was subsequently transferred via RTGS/NBFT to the shell entities, are either persons of low means who simply lent their identity details (id proof, signature) to unknown persons or are not traceable

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

bogus imports. From the investigations done here, it is seen that the account holders, in whose account cash deposits of more than Rs. 10 Crore was made and which was subsequently transferred via RTGS/NBFT to the shell entities, are either persons of low means who simply lent their identity details (id proof, signature) to unknown persons or are not traceable

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

bogus imports. From the investigations done here, it is seen that the account holders, in whose account cash deposits of more than Rs. 10 Crore was made and which was subsequently transferred via RTGS/NBFT to the shell entities, are either persons of low means who simply lent their identity details (id proof, signature) to unknown persons or are not traceable

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

bogus imports. From the investigations done here, it is seen that the account holders, in whose account cash deposits of more than Rs. 10 Crore was made and which was subsequently transferred via RTGS/NBFT to the shell entities, are either persons of low means who simply lent their identity details (id proof, signature) to unknown persons or are not traceable