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(1)(c

M/S. MORAKHIA COPPER & ALLOYS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 161/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 M/S. Morakhia Copper & Alloys Pvt. A.C.I.T., Ltd., Vs. Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), 12, 2Nd Floor, B Wing, Ahmedabad. Mardia Plaza, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacm3439J

bogus purchases shown by the assessee. The assessee during the assessment proceedings initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c

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

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

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(1)(c

SHRI ATULBHAI BABULAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-11,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountantmember & Ms. Madhumita Roy

271(1)(c) of the Act dated 28/03/2012 and assessment order u/s.143(3) dated 21/12/2011 relevant to Assessment Years (AYs) 2007-08, 2007-08 and 2009-10 respectively. First we take up ITA No.76/Ahd/2011 for AY 2007-08, wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 11.1. the order passed u/s.250

SHRI ATUL BABUBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT.,RANGE-10,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountantmember & Ms. Madhumita Roy

271(1)(c) of the Act dated 28/03/2012 and assessment order u/s.143(3) dated 21/12/2011 relevant to Assessment Years (AYs) 2007-08, 2007-08 and 2009-10 respectively. First we take up ITA No.76/Ahd/2011 for AY 2007-08, wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 11.1. the order passed u/s.250

SHRI ATULBHAI BABUBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-10,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountantmember & Ms. Madhumita Roy

271(1)(c) of the Act dated 28/03/2012 and assessment order u/s.143(3) dated 21/12/2011 relevant to Assessment Years (AYs) 2007-08, 2007-08 and 2009-10 respectively. First we take up ITA No.76/Ahd/2011 for AY 2007-08, wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 11.1. the order passed u/s.250

MARDIA COPPER EXTRUTIONS PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 229/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 1990-1991 M/S Mardia Copper Extrusions Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T, C/O Mehta Lodha & Co., Vs. Circle-2(1)(2), 105, Sakar-I, Near Gandhigram Railway Ahmedabad. Station, Off Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aabcm3848G

section 271(1)(c) would be deemed to be representing the income in respect of which inaccurate particulars have been furnished. 13. In the light of the above, if we examine the facts of the present case, then it would reveal that as far as addition with respect to suppressed profit is concerned, it is an estimated addition which

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(1)(c

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

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

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. VAM AIRTEX PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in both the assessment years before us, i

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Kamble

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short). 2. It was common ground that the issue pertaining to which penalty was levied in both the cases was identical, and therefore, both the appeals needed to be heard together. Accordingly, both the appeals were taken up together for adjudication. ITA No.2265 and 2266/Ahd/2018

M/S. VAM AIRTEX PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in both the assessment years before us, i

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Kamble

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short). 2. It was common ground that the issue pertaining to which penalty was levied in both the cases was identical, and therefore, both the appeals needed to be heard together. Accordingly, both the appeals were taken up together for adjudication. ITA No.2265 and 2266/Ahd/2018

RAMCHAND BHULCHAND RAJAI,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1, , BHAVNAGAR

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 167/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Ramchand Bhulchand Rajai, The Deputy Commissioner C/O. Jayesh Tyres, Vs. Of Income-Tax, Opp. Railway Station, Circle-1, Bhavnagar Bhavnagar-364001 Pan : Abmpr 4841 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri B.R. Popat, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta

purchase register does not reflect expenses of Rs.12,12,400/- claimed by the assessee. Thus, the officer disallowed the unexplained expenses of Rs. 12,12,400/-. The Ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 28.03.2014 confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,81,860/- due to non verifiability of claim of expenses and also considering the volume of freight receipt