SHITAL VIPULKUMAR DHOLAKIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

bogus transactions is misplaced and cannot form the sole basis\nfor invoking disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act.\n3.4 Having heard the rival contentions and upon a careful examination\nof the assessment order and the appellate order passed by the learned\nCIT(A), it emerges that the core issue in controversy pertains to the\nassessee's failure

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-3(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KRAFT LAMINATE, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Years : 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Kraft Laminate, Income-Tax, Vs C/O. Laxmi Timber, Nr. Circle 3(2), Ahmedabad Mahalaxmi Textile Mill, Opp. Rajbai Patel Timber Market, Narol Naroda Highway, Narol, Ahmedabad-382405 Pan : Aamfk 8120 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-:

bogus. He held that once confirmation of the loan creditors had been filed by the assessee, any action if required was to be taken in the case of loan creditors and not in the case of the assessee. Relying on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rohini Builders Vs. DCIT (supra), he held that

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AWAS DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 368/Ahd/2020 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T, M/S Awas Developers, Central Circle-1(4), Vs. “Agam Buglows” Ahmedabad. Opp. Subhash Society, Sanand-Kalol Road, Ahmedabad.

purchaser to whom the sales of shops were effected. Onus heavily lay on the revenue to prove with corroborative evidence that the entries in the seized diary actually represented the sales made by the assessee. Such onus had not been discharged by the revenue. Mere entries in the seized material were not sufficient to prove that the assessee had indulged

U.B. COTTON PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2008-09 U.B. Cotton P.Ltd. Dcit, Cir.4(1)(1) Indian Globe Chamber Vs Ahmedabad. 7Th Floor, 142 Wh Marg, Fort Mumbai 400 001. Pan : Aaacu 5526 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Written Submissions Revenue By : Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/05/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/05/2022 आदेश/O R D E R

bogus purchases stands on the premise that goods may not have been purchased from the recorded parties but from some parties off the record. But there are 3 difficulties in taking such a apposition in the present case : 7 i. Such a plea has not even been taken by the appellant either as a ground of appeal

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

3 cars namely Audi-A6, Sonata, Innova on the reasoning A.Y. 2009-2010 with others 11 that the assessee has failed to furnish the ownership of the cars in dispute which is one of the prerequisite to claim depreciation. Admittedly, the assessee has furnished the purchase invoices and RC book which are placed on pages

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD), CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

3 cars namely Audi-A6, Sonata, Innova on the reasoning A.Y. 2009-2010 with others 11 that the assessee has failed to furnish the ownership of the cars in dispute which is one of the prerequisite to claim depreciation. Admittedly, the assessee has furnished the purchase invoices and RC book which are placed on pages

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

3 cars namely Audi-A6, Sonata, Innova on the reasoning A.Y. 2009-2010 with others 11 that the assessee has failed to furnish the ownership of the cars in dispute which is one of the prerequisite to claim depreciation. Admittedly, the assessee has furnished the purchase invoices and RC book which are placed on pages

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

3 cars namely Audi-A6, Sonata, Innova on the reasoning A.Y. 2009-2010 with others 11 that the assessee has failed to furnish the ownership of the cars in dispute which is one of the prerequisite to claim depreciation. Admittedly, the assessee has furnished the purchase invoices and RC book which are placed on pages

SHRI HARSHAD JASWANTLAL SONI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT.,A'BAD RANGE-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

bogus purchases to the extent of 5% to 25% depending on the nature of business. In the appellant's case it would be appropriate to make the addition of 10% of unverified purchases. In view of this the addition made by the assessing officer is confirmed to the extent of 10% of such purchases and balance addition is deleted

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DEVRAJ INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all three appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanisl.

3 of Assessment-Year 2012-13. ITA Nos.1607/Ahd/2018, 1359/Ahd/2017& 2441/Ahd/2017 & Devraj Infrastructure Ltd. vs. DCIT/JCIT AYs – 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 24. Now we take up Ground No. 4 and 5 of Assessment-Year 2012-13. 25. In these grounds, the issue involved is whether the bogus purchases of Rs. 91,18,800/- and bogus expenditure

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

In the result, all three appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanisl.

3 of Assessment-Year 2012-13. ITA Nos.1607/Ahd/2018, 1359/Ahd/2017& 2441/Ahd/2017 & Devraj Infrastructure Ltd. vs. DCIT/JCIT AYs – 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 24. Now we take up Ground No. 4 and 5 of Assessment-Year 2012-13. 25. In these grounds, the issue involved is whether the bogus purchases of Rs. 91,18,800/- and bogus expenditure

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1659/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1689/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09 ) बनाम/ 1. Sun Pharmaceuticals 1. The Acit Industries Ltd. Cen.Cir-1 Vs. “Sparc” Tandalja Baroda – 20 2. The Acit 2. Sun Pharmaceu- Central Circle-1 Ticals Industries Baroda Ltd. Baroda. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs 3124K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri R.C. Panday, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 28/03/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/06/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Cross-Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–2, Vadodara [Cit(A) In Short] Vide Appeal No.Cab/(A)- 2/387/2014-15 Dated 31/03/2015 Arising In The Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 14/02/2014 Relevant To Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. Ita Nos.1659/Ahd/2015 (By Assessee) & Ita No.1689/Ahd/2015 (By Revenue) Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. Vs. Acit Asst.Year - 2008-09 2

bogus other than the statement. 18.7. It is also important to note that the statement furnished under section 131 of the Act dated 8-11-2011 was retracted by way of filing an affidavit dated 11-11-2011 immediately after 3 days. III. Whether the SUN BVI is a paper company i) There is no doubt that BVI was registered

THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE, MEHSANA vs. SHRI UMESH VADILAL KHAMAR, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

purchases were found to be genuine. We uphold the decision of the Ld.CIT(A). Thus, the ground raised by Revenue is dismissed. On Ground No.3 of the Revenue 9. The AO disallowed Rs.2,21,48,539/- under Section 40A(3) of the Act for cash payments exceeding Rs.20,000/-. The assessee argued that the payments were made to farmers

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. APPLITECH SOLUTION LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

bogus claim of computers purchased during the year under consideration was based on the assessment order passed in assessee’s case for AY 2000-01. He contended that the Tribunal, however, has decided the similar issue involved in AY 2000-01 in favour of the assessee by passing a well-reasoned and well-discussed order. He submitted that even

JT. CIT (OSD), CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. PRADIP OVERSEAS LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

3,31,79,415/- less purchases by POL Rs. 3.32,72,933/-) which is 0.28% of circular purchases by the appellant (POL). I.T.A No. 790/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 5 Jt. CIT(OSD) vs. M/s. Pradip Overseas Ltd. (ii) The appellant vide letter dated 15.03.2016 furnished above explanations and workings. The para is reproduced hereunder: “......................................... During the year circular

PATEL KENWOOD PRIVATE LIMITED,ANKLESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2018-19. Since common issue is involved in both the appeals, the same are disposed of by this common order. I.T.A Nos. 60 & 61/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No 2 Patel Kenwood

PATEL KENWOOD PRIVATE LIMITED,ANKLESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2018-19. Since common issue is involved in both the appeals, the same are disposed of by this common order. I.T.A Nos. 60 & 61/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No 2 Patel Kenwood