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

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

purchases amounting to Rs. 2,92,93,288/- and taxing only 25% of these bogus claim goes against the principles of Sections 68 and 69C

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

MARUTI METAL INDUSTRIES,,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-1,, BHAVNAGAR

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

Section 69C of the I.T. Act and the AO's observation about the purchases held to be bogus from Jay Ambe

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

TRUSHAR PARIMAL SHAH,,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),, BHAVNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 268/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2013-14) बनाम/ Trushar Parimal Shah The Income Tax 354, Madhav Darshan Officer Vs. Waghawadi Road Ward-1(3) Bhavnagar-364 002 Bhavnagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Axwps5561M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Tushar P. Hemani, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Nilabra Dasgupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 29/08/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 01/10/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

bogus purchases from the parties as mentioned above. Accordingly the impugned purchases as claimed by the assessee were treated as unexplained expenses under section 69C

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4,, BARODA vs. M/S. SYNBIOTICS LTD.,, BARODA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

purchases amounting to Rs.2,92,93,288/- and taxing only 25% of these bogus claim goes against the principles of Sections 68 and 69C

SYNBIOTICS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1),, BARODA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

purchases amounting to Rs.2,92,93,288/- and taxing only 25% of these bogus claim goes against the principles of Sections 68 and 69C