INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR vs. MADHAV COPPER LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three by the assessee, stand dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

bogus suppliers. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice under section 148 and framed the ITA No.254 to 256 and 274 to 276 /Ahd/2024 3 reassessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147. On finding that the assessee had not satisfactorily discharged the onus of establishing the genuineness of purchases and the identity of the suppliers, the AO invoked the provisions

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR vs. MADHAV COPPER LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three by the assessee, stand dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

bogus suppliers. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice under section 148 and framed the ITA No.254 to 256 and 274 to 276 /Ahd/2024 3 reassessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147. On finding that the assessee had not satisfactorily discharged the onus of establishing the genuineness of purchases and the identity of the suppliers, the AO invoked the provisions

MADHAV COPPER LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three by the assessee, stand dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

bogus suppliers. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice under section 148 and framed the ITA No.254 to 256 and 274 to 276 /Ahd/2024 3 reassessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147. On finding that the assessee had not satisfactorily discharged the onus of establishing the genuineness of purchases and the identity of the suppliers, the AO invoked the provisions

MADHAV COPPER LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three\nby the assessee, stand dismissed

bogus suppliers. The Assessing Officer\n(AO) issued notice under section 148 and framed the\nreassessment under section 143(3) r.w.s.147. On finding that\nthe assessee had not satisfactorily discharged the onus of\nestablishing the genuineness of purchases and the identity of the\nsuppliers, the AO invoked the provisions of section 145(3),\nrejected the books of account, and applied

MADHAV COPPER LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three\nby the assessee, stand dismissed

bogus suppliers. The Assessing Officer\n(AO) issued notice under section 148 and framed the\nreassessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147. On finding that\nthe assessee had not satisfactorily discharged the onus of\nestablishing the genuineness of purchases and the identity of the\nsuppliers, the AO invoked the provisions of section 145(3),\nrejected the books of account

ITO, WARD - 4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD , AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE GAYATRI COTTEX ENGINEERS PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri T R Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

57,73,285/- made by AO on account of bogus purchase despite the fact that: (i) the vendors failed to respond to Section

HARI KRUSHNA MACHINTECH PRIVATE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

bogus and treating the corresponding sales as genuine which is self contradictory in nature. 8. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.11,84,57,168/- made by the Assessing Officer treating the purchases made by the appellant as non genuine without pointing out any defect

HARI KRUSHNA MACHINTECH PRIVATE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

bogus and treating the corresponding sales as genuine which is self contradictory in nature. 8. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.11,84,57,168/- made by the Assessing Officer treating the purchases made by the appellant as non genuine without pointing out any defect

HARI KRUSHNA MACHINTECH PRIVATE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

bogus and treating the corresponding sales as genuine which is self contradictory in nature. 8. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.11,84,57,168/- made by the Assessing Officer treating the purchases made by the appellant as non genuine without pointing out any defect

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

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

bogus transactions without supporting documentation. The CIT(A), however, allowed the purchases as genuine after reviewing evidence submitted by the assessee. Gift, Boni, and Chandla The AO disallowed these expenses as non- Expenses business in nature. The CIT(A) partially allowed the expenses as promotional in nature but confirmed a portion as non-business

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

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

bogus transactions without supporting documentation. The CIT(A), however, allowed the purchases as genuine after reviewing evidence submitted by the assessee. Gift, Boni, and Chandla The AO disallowed these expenses as non- Expenses business in nature. The CIT(A) partially allowed the expenses as promotional in nature but confirmed a portion as non-business

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

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

bogus transactions without supporting documentation. The CIT(A), however, allowed the purchases as genuine after reviewing evidence submitted by the assessee. Gift, Boni, and Chandla The AO disallowed these expenses as non- Expenses business in nature. The CIT(A) partially allowed the expenses as promotional in nature but confirmed a portion as non-business

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

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

bogus transactions without supporting documentation. The CIT(A), however, allowed the purchases as genuine after reviewing evidence submitted by the assessee. Gift, Boni, and Chandla The AO disallowed these expenses as non- Expenses business in nature. The CIT(A) partially allowed the expenses as promotional in nature but confirmed a portion as non-business

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

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

bogus transactions without supporting documentation. The CIT(A), however, allowed the purchases as genuine after reviewing evidence submitted by the assessee. Gift, Boni, and Chandla The AO disallowed these expenses as non- Expenses business in nature. The CIT(A) partially allowed the expenses as promotional in nature but confirmed a portion as non-business

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

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

bogus transactions without supporting documentation. The CIT(A), however, allowed the purchases as genuine after reviewing evidence submitted by the assessee. Gift, Boni, and Chandla The AO disallowed these expenses as non- Expenses business in nature. The CIT(A) partially allowed the expenses as promotional in nature but confirmed a portion as non-business

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

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

bogus transactions without supporting documentation. The CIT(A), however, allowed the purchases as genuine after reviewing evidence submitted by the assessee. Gift, Boni, and Chandla The AO disallowed these expenses as non- Expenses business in nature. The CIT(A) partially allowed the expenses as promotional in nature but confirmed a portion as non-business

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

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

bogus transactions without supporting documentation. The CIT(A), however, allowed the purchases as genuine after reviewing evidence submitted by the assessee. Gift, Boni, and Chandla The AO disallowed these expenses as non- Expenses business in nature. The CIT(A) partially allowed the expenses as promotional in nature but confirmed a portion as non-business

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

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

bogus transactions without supporting documentation. The CIT(A), however, allowed the purchases as genuine after reviewing evidence submitted by the assessee. Gift, Boni, and Chandla The AO disallowed these expenses as non- Expenses business in nature. The CIT(A) partially allowed the expenses as promotional in nature but confirmed a portion as non-business

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

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

bogus transactions without supporting documentation. The CIT(A), however, allowed the purchases as genuine after reviewing evidence submitted by the assessee. Gift, Boni, and Chandla The AO disallowed these expenses as non- Expenses business in nature. The CIT(A) partially allowed the expenses as promotional in nature but confirmed a portion as non-business