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

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR vs. LEELA GREENSHIP RECYCLING PRIVATE LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of above directions

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 2111/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Leela Greenship Recycling Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Office No.303, 3Rd Floor, बनाम/ Commissioner V/S. B Wing, Leela Efcee, Of Income Tax, Near Aksharwadi Temple, Circle-1, Waghawadi Road, Bhavnagar. Bhavnagar-364002. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aagcg8956L

section 69C of the Act treating the purchases from M/s. Mahadev Trading Co. as bogus, resulting in the assessed income

LEELA GREENSHIP RECYCLING PVT. LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes in terms of above directions

section 69C of the Act treating the purchases from M/s.\nMahadev Trading Co. as bogus, resulting in the assessed income

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

Section 69C of the Act, Bhagat Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT Asst.Year –2016-17 - 4– emphasizing that the A.O. should not simply apply a suppressed profit rate but instead account for the full extent of the bogus purchases

ESPEE PHARMA CHEM PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year:2019-20

purchase as bogus and accordingly made addition of Rs.42,95,00/- under Section 69C of the Act. The assessment was completed

JITENDRA RAJKUMAR AGARWAL (PROPRIETOR OF SHRI SHIV SHAKTI ENTERPRISE),AHMEDABAD vs. ASESSMENT UNIT, IT DEPARTMENT JURIS. AO- THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

bogus purchases merely to inflate expenses and reduce taxable profit. The entire purchases of Rs. 1,75,16,480/- were treated as unexplained expenditure under section 69C

DHARMESSH SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, PATAN

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2019-20 Dharmessh Shah The Ito, Ward-1 A-301, Vasantkunj Vs Patan. Garden Residency Sanjivan Road Paldi, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aelps 5203 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Kunal T. Sanghavi, Ar Assessee By : Shri Prathvij Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

purchases from M/s. Vishnu Gold as high-risk, allegedly involving bogus Input Tax Credit. The AO issued notice under section 148A(b), duly considered the assessee's response, and passed an order under section 148A(d), followed by issue of notice under section 148. The Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the validity of such reopening by relying on Explanation

RAMJIBHAI KESARAJI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), VADODARA

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

section 69C towards alleged bogus purchases. The details of the same are as under:- Date Amount (Rs.) Amount credited to the account

AIR WIND GREEN ENERGY LIMITED,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD -1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases made by the assessee ITA No. 615/Ahd/2025 [Air Wind Green Energy Limited vs. PCIT] A.Y. 2018-19 - 3 – u/s.37 (1) of the Act while he should have invoked section 69C

ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND vs. NARENDRAKUMAR HANSRAJBHAI PATEL, KHEDA

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.834/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2021-22 The Acit Narendrakumar Hansrajbhai बनाम/ Dy./Asst.Commissioner Of Patel V/S. Income Tax (Anand Circle) I C/O. Mahakali Saw Mill Anand – 388 001 Mansarovar Marker Kamla Kamia, Kheda – 387 320 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Cmmpp 6784 N (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mishal Mehta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 27/02/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-2022. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether, On Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 10,64,04,151/-Made U/S 69C Of The Act Without Appreciating The Fact The Assessee Failed To Substantiate The Expenditure Claimed With Supporting Evidences? Asst.Cit Vs. Narendrakumar Hansrajbhai Patel Asst. Year : 2021-22

bogus merely because certain suppliers did not respond to the AO’s notices or had filed low returns. In view of the detailed evidence produced by the assessee demonstrating the genuineness of purchases and sales, the CIT(A) held that the addition of ₹10,64,04,151/- made by the AO under section 69C

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. DEVAL PRANAV PATEL L/H. OF LATE SHRI PRANAV MAHENDRABHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 69C of the Act is also not justifiable by deleting the same. The Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer has rightly made the addition as the assessee could not give the details about the genuineness of the trading of shares of Kushal Group of Companies and manipulated the scrips to generate bogus long term capital gain/loss and short

DILIPKUMAR PASHABHAI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/Sf 211 Pushp Business Campus Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr. Vastral Cross Road Ahmedabad Sp Ring Road Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 418 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atrpp 9632 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

purchases made by the appellant as bogus u/s 69C since the same was duly supported with bills and made payments through account payee cheques. 4. NFAC failed to consider that A.O. had reopened assessment based on the CBI inquiry, which is not a judicial proceeding, hence it is unrelatable in the Income Tax Assessment Proceeding, thereby quashing the assessment proceeding

DILIPKUMAR PASHABHAI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/Sf 211 Pushp Business Campus Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr. Vastral Cross Road Ahmedabad Sp Ring Road Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 418 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atrpp 9632 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

purchases made by the appellant as bogus u/s 69C since the same was duly supported with bills and made payments through account payee cheques. 4. NFAC failed to consider that A.O. had reopened assessment based on the CBI inquiry, which is not a judicial proceeding, hence it is unrelatable in the Income Tax Assessment Proceeding, thereby quashing the assessment proceeding

ARVINDKUMAR SHI vs. HYAM TRIPATHI,RAJKOTVS.THE ITO, WARD-1(9), BHAVNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

section 69C of the Act in respect of alleged bogus purchases. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts

INCOME TAX OFFICER, 1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SHWETA MANISH JAIN, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

69C of the I.T. Act, when the assessee could not substantiate with documentary evidences that the funds transferred to the Bank account of the entity was not for layering of funds in lieu of entries? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact

AMBAR RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

purchases of ₹4,82,10,278/- from M/s S.K. Enterprise were bogus. After rejecting the assessee’s submissions as unproven, the Assessing Officer invoked section 69C

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD., VEJALPUR vs. 7NR RETAIL LIMITED, NAVRANGPURA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

purchases as unexplained under section 69C of the Act, and thereby made an addition of ₹30,02,500, and further added a sum of ₹14,85,600/- by estimating additional gross profit on the alleged bogus

PRINGALKUMAR PRAVEENBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the asessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

section 69C despite the purchases being duly recorded in the books and the source of expenditure being fully explained. 6. Without prejudice, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming 100% disallowance of purchases, contrary to settled judicial principles that only profit element, if any, can be brought to tax.” 3. The solitary grievance raised by the assessee