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

275 and 276/Ahd/2024 Asstt.Year : 2018-19, 2020-21 and 2021-22 Madhav Copper Ltd. The ITO, Ward-1(8) 348, Madhav Darshan Vs. Bhavnagar. Waghawadi Road Bhavnagar Gujarat 364 001. PAN : AAICM 2859 A (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Adv., and Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, AR Revenue by : Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR, and Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR सुनवाई

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

275 and 276/Ahd/2024 Asstt.Year : 2018-19, 2020-21 and 2021-22 Madhav Copper Ltd. The ITO, Ward-1(8) 348, Madhav Darshan Vs. Bhavnagar. Waghawadi Road Bhavnagar Gujarat 364 001. PAN : AAICM 2859 A (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Adv., and Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, AR Revenue by : Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR, and Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR सुनवाई

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

275 and 276/Ahd/2024 Asstt.Year : 2018-19, 2020-21 and 2021-22 Madhav Copper Ltd. The ITO, Ward-1(8) 348, Madhav Darshan Vs. Bhavnagar. Waghawadi Road Bhavnagar Gujarat 364 001. PAN : AAICM 2859 A (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Adv., and Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, AR Revenue by : Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR, and Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR सुनवाई

THE ITO, WARD-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

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

THE ITO, WARD-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

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

275(l)(a) of the Act. Besides the above, we also note that the ITAT Ahmedabad in the own case of the assessee bearing ITA No. 105/AHD/2014 for the assessment year 1992-93 Page 8 of 11 Asstt. Year 1990-91 9 vide order dated 3-4-2017 involving identical issue has decided the appeal in favour of the assessee

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

purchases from the parties was held as bogus. Thus only the element of profit was brought to tax. Accordingly, there was no shifting in the basis of the addition made by the authorities below which was subsequently confirmed by the ITAT. Accordingly, the contention of the assessee that the basis of addition has been changed by the ITAT

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

bogus in nature. Thus, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer was correct and there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT(OSD) Asst.Years–2009-10, 2010-11, 2008-09, 2014-15 & 2015-16 49. We have heard both the parties and perused

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

bogus in nature. Thus, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer was correct and there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT(OSD) Asst.Years–2009-10, 2010-11, 2008-09, 2014-15 & 2015-16 49. We have heard both the parties and perused

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

bogus in nature. Thus, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer was correct and there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT(OSD) Asst.Years–2009-10, 2010-11, 2008-09, 2014-15 & 2015-16 49. We have heard both the parties and perused

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

bogus in nature. Thus, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer was correct and there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT(OSD) Asst.Years–2009-10, 2010-11, 2008-09, 2014-15 & 2015-16 49. We have heard both the parties and perused

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

bogus in nature. Thus, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer was correct and there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT(OSD) Asst.Years–2009-10, 2010-11, 2008-09, 2014-15 & 2015-16 49. We have heard both the parties and perused

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

bogus in nature. Thus, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer was correct and there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT(OSD) Asst.Years–2009-10, 2010-11, 2008-09, 2014-15 & 2015-16 49. We have heard both the parties and perused

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(OSD),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

bogus in nature. Thus, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer was correct and there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT(OSD) Asst.Years–2009-10, 2010-11, 2008-09, 2014-15 & 2015-16 49. We have heard both the parties and perused

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

bogus in nature. Thus, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer was correct and there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT(OSD) Asst.Years–2009-10, 2010-11, 2008-09, 2014-15 & 2015-16 49. We have heard both the parties and perused

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

bogus in nature. Thus, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer was correct and there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT(OSD) Asst.Years–2009-10, 2010-11, 2008-09, 2014-15 & 2015-16 49. We have heard both the parties and perused

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. JOHN ENERGY LTD.,, MEHSANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

275/-. The Assessing Officer further made disallowance of professional and consultancy fee paid outside India amounting to Rs.3,32,31,388/- thereby observing that the assessee debited huge sum in its Profit & Loss account under the head “Professional and Consultancy Fee”. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly

M/S. JOHN ENERGY LTD.,,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT., MEHSANA CIRCLE,, MEHSANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

275/-. The Assessing Officer further made disallowance of professional and consultancy fee paid outside India amounting to Rs.3,32,31,388/- thereby observing that the assessee debited huge sum in its Profit & Loss account under the head “Professional and Consultancy Fee”. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly