M/S. UNIQUE METROPOLIS,,AHMEDABAD vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,RANGE-9,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

bogus purchases calculated at 12.5% of the purchases which is excessive when no such disallowance is called. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee reiterated that assessee had provided all details and evidences and vide reply dated 24-02- 2014, copy of PAN card of parties, confirmation of ledger account duly signed by parties, copies of invoices and delivery challan

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby\nallowed

Section 147 of the Act as the same was done after four years\nfrom the end of the assessment year. He, therefore, has submitted that\nreopening of the assessment in this case was bad in law.\n7. The Ld. DR, however, has relied on the findings of the lower authorities.\n8. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 147 of the Act as the same was done after four years from the end of the assessment year. He, therefore, has submitted that reopening of the assessment in this case was bad in law. 7. The Ld. DR, however, has relied on the findings of the lower authorities. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 147 of the Act as the same was done after four years from the end of the assessment year. He, therefore, has submitted that reopening of the assessment in this case was bad in law. 7. The Ld. DR, however, has relied on the findings of the lower authorities. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 147 of the Act as the same was done after four years from the end of the assessment year. He, therefore, has submitted that reopening of the assessment in this case was bad in law. 7. The Ld. DR, however, has relied on the findings of the lower authorities. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus expenses thereby observing that the assessee was not able to produce confirmation from parties and not supplied PAN of the said parties. Thus, on the ground that the assessee did not prove the identity, capacity and genuineness of the transactions of the creditors, the said addition was made. The Assessing Officer further made addition of Rs.19,41,340/- towards

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus expenses thereby observing that the assessee was not able to produce confirmation from parties and not supplied PAN of the said parties. Thus, on the ground that the assessee did not prove the identity, capacity and genuineness of the transactions of the creditors, the said addition was made. The Assessing Officer further made addition of Rs.19,41,340/- towards

SHRI HIRALAL D. THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), , AHMEDABAD

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

purchase were shown. All the bills were benami, Further, the Auditor of society had clearly called for the bills during the audit of society which were not produced for audit purpose. 4. On perusal of bank statement it was found that there were credit entries in your bank account. The sources of deposit of such entries remain unexplained

SHRI HIRALAL D. THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), , AHMEDABAD

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

purchase were shown. All the bills were benami, Further, the Auditor of society had clearly called for the bills during the audit of society which were not produced for audit purpose. 4. On perusal of bank statement it was found that there were credit entries in your bank account. The sources of deposit of such entries remain unexplained

THA ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA vs. M/S. GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

340/- on the basis of purchase price of power from GEB i.e. at the rate of Rs.4.72 per unit. The AO has held that it was not entitled for deduction. In case it is to be held that deduction is admissible then, he reduced quantum by adopting the rate at Rs.2.36 per unit of power, which according

THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMEICALS LTD, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

340/- on the basis of purchase price of power from GEB i.e. at the rate of Rs.4.72 per unit. The AO has held that it was not entitled for deduction. In case it is to be held that deduction is admissible then, he reduced quantum by adopting the rate at Rs.2.36 per unit of power, which according

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

340/- on the basis of purchase price of power from GEB i.e. at the rate of Rs.4.72 per unit. The AO has held that it was not entitled for deduction. In case it is to be held that deduction is admissible then, he reduced quantum by adopting the rate at Rs.2.36 per unit of power, which according

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

340/- on the basis of purchase price of power from GEB i.e. at the rate of Rs.4.72 per unit. The AO has held that it was not entitled for deduction. In case it is to be held that deduction is admissible then, he reduced quantum by adopting the rate at Rs.2.36 per unit of power, which according

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMEICALS LTD,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

340/- on the basis of purchase price of power from GEB i.e. at the rate of Rs.4.72 per unit. The AO has held that it was not entitled for deduction. In case it is to be held that deduction is admissible then, he reduced quantum by adopting the rate at Rs.2.36 per unit of power, which according

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LTD.,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

340/- on the basis of purchase price of power from GEB i.e. at the rate of Rs.4.72 per unit. The AO has held that it was not entitled for deduction. In case it is to be held that deduction is admissible then, he reduced quantum by adopting the rate at Rs.2.36 per unit of power, which according

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

340/- on the basis of purchase price of power from GEB i.e. at the rate of Rs.4.72 per unit. The AO has held that it was not entitled for deduction. In case it is to be held that deduction is admissible then, he reduced quantum by adopting the rate at Rs.2.36 per unit of power, which according

HIMANSHU DAKSHESHKUMAR KATWALA,KHAMBHAT ANAND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), PETLAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

purchase value and sale value instead of taxing only the actual profit. 9. The authorities further erred in treating unsold closing shares as sold and adding their value as income, which is contrary to settled principles of taxation and accounting. 10. The entire addition is based on non-application of mind and incorrect understanding of law and therefore deserves

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD vs. NIRMA CHEMICALS WORKS PVT.LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

340 that if funds are available, both interest free and interest bearing, then a pre assumption arise that investments are made out of interest bearing funds generated or available with the assessee. If the interest free funds were sufficient to meet investment, no disallowance of interest is warranted. Respectfully following the ratio of Hon'ble Mumbai High Court decision