THE JT. CIT, RANGE-9,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. UNIQUE METROPOILS,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

44,05,249/- is found to be non-genuine and bogus and was disallowed. 5.2. In appeal, ld. CIT(A) gave part relief to the assessee and restricted disallowance to 12.5% of the concerned purchases as against total purchases disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) accepted the assessee’s contention that sale of flat made

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

In the result, Ground Nos

44,05,249/- is found to be non-genuine and bogus and was disallowed. 5.2. In appeal, ld. CIT(A) gave part relief to the assessee and restricted disallowance to 12.5% of the concerned purchases as against total purchases disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) accepted the assessee’s contention that sale of flat made

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. M/S. ULTRA TECH TRANSMISSION,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

bogus purchase bills and assessee could not produce any material purchased by it nor it could ensure presence of supplier, Assessing Officer was unjustified in limiting addition under section 69C on basis of GP ratio. In the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. CIT[2015] 58 taxmann.com 44

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. M/S. ULTRA TECH TRANSMISSION,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

bogus purchase bills and assessee could not produce any material purchased by it nor it could ensure presence of supplier, Assessing Officer was unjustified in limiting addition under section 69C on basis of GP ratio. In the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. CIT[2015] 58 taxmann.com 44

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. M/S. ULTRATECH TRANSMISSION PVT. LTD, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

bogus purchase bills and assessee could not produce any material purchased by it nor it could ensure presence of supplier, Assessing Officer was unjustified in limiting addition under section 69C on basis of GP ratio. In the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. CIT[2015] 58 taxmann.com 44

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. M/S. ULTRA TECH TRANSMISSION,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

bogus purchase bills and assessee could not produce any material purchased by it nor it could ensure presence of supplier, Assessing Officer was unjustified in limiting addition under section 69C on basis of GP ratio. In the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. CIT[2015] 58 taxmann.com 44

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. ULTRA TECH TRANSMISSION,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

bogus purchase bills and assessee could not produce any material purchased by it nor it could ensure presence of supplier, Assessing Officer was unjustified in limiting addition under section 69C on basis of GP ratio. In the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. CIT[2015] 58 taxmann.com 44

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

bogus purchases had been set aside in entirety by the Hon’ble ITAT for fresh adjudication and therefore the earlier relief granted by the CIT(A) stood merged with the order of the Tribunal. It was observed that the Assessing Officer had rightly re-examined the entire issue in accordance with the directions of the ITAT and hence the contention

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

bogus purchases had been set aside in entirety by the Hon’ble ITAT for fresh adjudication and therefore the earlier relief granted by the CIT(A) stood merged with the order of the Tribunal. It was observed that the Assessing Officer had rightly re-examined the entire issue in accordance with the directions of the ITAT and hence the contention

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

bogus purchases had been set aside in entirety by the Hon’ble ITAT for fresh adjudication and therefore the earlier relief granted by the CIT(A) stood merged with the order of the Tribunal. It was observed that the Assessing Officer had rightly re-examined the entire issue in accordance with the directions of the ITAT and hence the contention

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

bogus purchases had been set aside in entirety by the Hon’ble ITAT for fresh adjudication and therefore the earlier relief granted by the CIT(A) stood merged with the order of the Tribunal. It was observed that the Assessing Officer had rightly re-examined the entire issue in accordance with the directions of the ITAT and hence the contention

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. MOHAMMEDARIF IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

44 Taxman.com 459 (Guj.) Dharmamdev Finance Pvt. Limited 43 taxman. Com 395 (Guj.). ACIT vs. Jogindersingh (ITA No. 2942/Delhi/2011) ITAT, Delhi Anmol Colour India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 31 SOT 18 (JP) 121 ITJ 269: ITAT, Jaipur. CIT vs. Khanpur Cool Synthicate (1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC): I have examined the contents of remand report and the rejoinder filed

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. MOHAMMEDARIF IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

44 Taxman.com 459 (Guj.) Dharmamdev Finance Pvt. Limited 43 taxman. Com 395 (Guj.). ACIT vs. Jogindersingh (ITA No. 2942/Delhi/2011) ITAT, Delhi Anmol Colour India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 31 SOT 18 (JP) 121 ITJ 269: ITAT, Jaipur. CIT vs. Khanpur Cool Synthicate (1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC): I have examined the contents of remand report and the rejoinder filed

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

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SAGARDEEP ALLOYS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2011-12. 2. The brief facts of the case the assessee was engaged in trading of ferros and non-ferrous metals and manufacturing of copper, pipe, I.T.A No. 1810/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 2 DCIT

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

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

bogus purchases), the assessee’s books did not meet the statutory standards for completeness and accuracy. The AO invoked section 145(3) of the Act on the grounds that the expenses listed could not be verified as genuine and concluded that the books were unreliable, and it would be inappropriate to compute income based on these accounts. Given the rejection

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

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

bogus purchases), the assessee’s books did not meet the statutory standards for completeness and accuracy. The AO invoked section 145(3) of the Act on the grounds that the expenses listed could not be verified as genuine and concluded that the books were unreliable, and it would be inappropriate to compute income based on these accounts. Given the rejection