BHAGAT MARKETING PVT LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, in light of the above observations and the judicial precedents on the subject, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

bogus purchases in accordance with law and thus revision under section. 263 is nothing but a change of opinion and hence order u/s. 263 is bad in law. 2. The directions given to AO in para 7, 7.1 and 8 of order under section 263 by the ld. Pr.CIT are already carried

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

purchase\nexpenses.\n67. ISSUE NO.4 REGARDING TREATMENT OF ALLEGED BOGUS\nSUB-CONTRACT EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 69A AND 69C OF\nTHE ACT AND CHARGING THE SAME AT THE RATE SPECIFIED\nIN TERMS OF SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT.\n68. The next issue being taken for consideration is the\ntreatment of the alleged bogus sub-contract expenses as deemed\nincome

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

36(1)(iii) would cease to exist, since there would\nbe no continuing diversion of borrowed funds for non-business purposes. In\nthat event, the disallowances made for the impugned years would not\nsurvive and shall be deleted. Conversely, if it is established that the\namounts had no business nexus and continued to remain diverted for non-\nbusiness purposes

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 36(1)(vii) were not met. The CIT(A) allowed the write-off, finding that the debt had indeed become irrecoverable. Bogus Purchases

THE ACIT,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 36(1)(vii) were not met. The CIT(A) allowed the write-off, finding that the debt had indeed become irrecoverable. Bogus Purchases

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 36(1)(vii) were not met. The CIT(A) allowed the write-off, finding that the debt had indeed become irrecoverable. Bogus Purchases

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 36(1)(vii) were not met. The CIT(A) allowed the write-off, finding that the debt had indeed become irrecoverable. Bogus Purchases

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 36(1)(vii) were not met. The CIT(A) allowed the write-off, finding that the debt had indeed become irrecoverable. Bogus Purchases

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 36(1)(vii) were not met. The CIT(A) allowed the write-off, finding that the debt had indeed become irrecoverable. Bogus Purchases

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 36(1)(vii) were not met. The CIT(A) allowed the write-off, finding that the debt had indeed become irrecoverable. Bogus Purchases

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 36(1)(vii) were not met. The CIT(A) allowed the write-off, finding that the debt had indeed become irrecoverable. Bogus Purchases

THE ACIT,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 36(1)(vii) were not met. The CIT(A) allowed the write-off, finding that the debt had indeed become irrecoverable. Bogus Purchases

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 36(1)(vii) were not met. The CIT(A) allowed the write-off, finding that the debt had indeed become irrecoverable. Bogus Purchases

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 36(1)(vii) were not met. The CIT(A) allowed the write-off, finding that the debt had indeed become irrecoverable. Bogus Purchases

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 36(1)(vii) were not met. The CIT(A) allowed the write-off, finding that the debt had indeed become irrecoverable. Bogus Purchases

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 36(1)(vii) were not met. The CIT(A) allowed the write-off, finding that the debt had indeed become irrecoverable. Bogus Purchases

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

purchases made from other concerns in other years, there are\ncorresponding concerns in table 2 in the annexure to his statement.\n10. He categorically admitted that all the loans and advances are merely bogus in\nnature. He also submitted date-wise and party-wise details of such bogus\ntransactions.\nFurther, Shri Bharat Padiya, Executive Director of Dishman Group has also

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

36(1)(iii) would cease to exist, since there would\nbe no continuing diversion of borrowed funds for non-business purposes. In\nthat event, the disallowances made for the impugned years would not\nsurvive and shall be deleted. Conversely, if it is established that the\namounts had no business nexus and continued to remain diverted for non-\nbusiness purposes