SHRI PRAVIN SHIVLAL SHAH,,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3),, BARODA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

section 69 of the I.T.Act, 1961." ITA Nos. 1379 & 1380/Ahd/2016 20 . A.Ys. 2010-11-2011-12 4. Against the addition of 12.5% of the total purchase, assessee preferred first statutory appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who held that the undisclosed income of the appellant should be assessed @ 10% of purchase shown to have been made by him from

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

47%, which is clearly abnormal and unimaginable in the assessee’s line of business. The counsel for the assessee also drew our attention several other judicial precedents on the subject, where either the disallowance on account of bogus expenses were deleted or only a certain percentage of the bogus expenses were disallowed, considering the particular facts of the case

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

47%, which is clearly abnormal and unimaginable in the assessee’s line of business. The counsel for the assessee also drew our attention several other judicial precedents on the subject, where either the disallowance on account of bogus expenses were deleted or only a certain percentage of the bogus expenses were disallowed, considering the particular facts of the case

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

47%, which is clearly abnormal and unimaginable in the assessee’s line of business. The counsel for the assessee also drew our attention several other judicial precedents on the subject, where either the disallowance on account of bogus expenses were deleted or only a certain percentage of the bogus expenses were disallowed, considering the particular facts of the case

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

47%, which is clearly abnormal and unimaginable in the assessee’s line of business. The counsel for the assessee also drew our attention several other judicial precedents on the subject, where either the disallowance on account of bogus expenses were deleted or only a certain percentage of the bogus expenses were disallowed, considering the particular facts of the case

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

47%, which is clearly abnormal and unimaginable in the assessee’s line of business. The counsel for the assessee also drew our attention several other judicial precedents on the subject, where either the disallowance on account of bogus expenses were deleted or only a certain percentage of the bogus expenses were disallowed, considering the particular facts of the case

M/S. ACCRA PAC (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ground numbers 5 to 7 of the assessee’s appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

section 69C of the Act. 3) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the material placed before the Assessing Officer and himself in this regard. 4) Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of law, the appellant submits that the disallowance u/s.69C is unjustified and requires to be deleted

VINAL COAL PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 896/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Vimal Coal Private Limited, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. T. Hiranand Estate, Nr. Fruit Income-Tax, Market, Naroda Road, Naroda, Circle 4(1)(2), Ahmedabad-380025 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabcv 4259 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Sunil Maloo, Ca ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.08.2024 आदेश/O R D E R

bogus purchases amounting to INR 2,47,76,349/- notwithstanding the formal acceptance of the Assessee's books of accounts under Section

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

DCIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ALPESHKUMAR C.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1908/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive In Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. Pan: Aeapp9489G

bogus creditors. If that is so, what evidences AO has collected to place it on record. Once confirmations have been filed, further action, if any, is required to be taken in case of creditor and not in case of appellant. Explanation about 'source of source' or 'origins of origin' cannot be asked from the appellant while making inquiry under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VEJALPUR vs. KRISHNAAVTAR J KABRA (HUF), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds in its appeal:- “1. Whether the CIT(A) has justified in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,51,71,221/- made on account of disallowance

XCELRIS LABS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

section 43(1) of the I.T Act.\nIt is therefore prayed that impugned penalty order may please\nbe cancelled.\n5.\nThe learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly\nerred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action\nof the AO in imposing the impugned penalty with respect to the\naddition/disallowance of appellants legitimate claim of\ndepreciation

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ASHOKKUMAR MOHANLAL JAIN,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1207/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Ashok Mohanlal Jain, I.T.O, Prop Of Parshwanth Enterprise, Vs. Ward-1(3)(1), S/3, Sujata Flats, Ahmedabad. Camp Road, Sahibaug, Ahmedabad-380004. Pan: Aczpj7617B

section 251(2) of the Act which reads as under: (2) The 56[***] 57[Commissioner (Appeals)] shall not enhance an assessment or a penalty or reduce the amount of refund unless the appellant has had a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement or reduction. From the above reading of the provisions of law, we note that

SHRI ASHOK MOHANLAL JAIN,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1207/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Ashok Mohanlal Jain, I.T.O, Prop Of Parshwanth Enterprise, Vs. Ward-1(3)(1), S/3, Sujata Flats, Ahmedabad. Camp Road, Sahibaug, Ahmedabad-380004. Pan: Aczpj7617B

section 251(2) of the Act which reads as under: (2) The 56[***] 57[Commissioner (Appeals)] shall not enhance an assessment or a penalty or reduce the amount of refund unless the appellant has had a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement or reduction. From the above reading of the provisions of law, we note that

SHYAM REALTIES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRLCE-2(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1387/Ahd/2024 & 1388/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shyam Realities The Dy.Cit, बनाम/ Tejendra Arcade Circle-2(2)(1) V/S. Ganji Farak Mill Compound Ahmedabad – 380 015 Rakhiyal Cross Road Rakhiyal, Ahmedabad – 380 021 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abvfs 2603 M (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee For Assessment Years (Ays) 2017–18 & 2018–19 Are Directed Against The Respective Appellate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 27.06.2024. In The Impugned Orders, The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Disallowance Of Interest On Unsecured Loans To The Extent Of Rs.36,69,000/- For A.Y. 2017–18 & Rs.38,94,295/- For A.Y. 2018–19, As Originally Disallowed By

section 269SS) 4. Rs. 47,16,513/- (bogus purchases) Assessed Rs. 204,97,229/- Rs. 51,04,16,994/- Income

SHYAM REALTIES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRLCE-2(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1387/Ahd/2024 & 1388/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shyam Realities The Dy.Cit, बनाम/ Tejendra Arcade Circle-2(2)(1) V/S. Ganji Farak Mill Compound Ahmedabad – 380 015 Rakhiyal Cross Road Rakhiyal, Ahmedabad – 380 021 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abvfs 2603 M (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee For Assessment Years (Ays) 2017–18 & 2018–19 Are Directed Against The Respective Appellate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 27.06.2024. In The Impugned Orders, The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Disallowance Of Interest On Unsecured Loans To The Extent Of Rs.36,69,000/- For A.Y. 2017–18 & Rs.38,94,295/- For A.Y. 2018–19, As Originally Disallowed By

section 269SS) 4. Rs. 47,16,513/- (bogus purchases) Assessed Rs. 204,97,229/- Rs. 51,04,16,994/- Income