SHRI KIRTIKUMAR VASANTBHAI THAKKAR,,PATAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, PATAN

In the result, both the grounds of the appeal of the assessee are dismissed

section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, learned CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining additions of Rs. 5,09,032 out of I.T.A No. 3042/Ahd/2014

THE DY. CIT, (OSD)-I, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KINTECH SYNERGY PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

70,960/- Total 37,68,078/- ITA Nos.2377 & 2378/Ahd/2015 C.O. Nos.186 & 187/Ahd/2015 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Page 3 of 5 It is noted that the information received in respect of the above parties from the Sales Tax Dept were specific. The entire method of issuing bogus bills was accepted by various owners of the above mentioned parties

THE DY. CIT, (OSD)-I, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KINTECH SYNERGY PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

70,960/- Total 37,68,078/- ITA Nos.2377 & 2378/Ahd/2015 C.O. Nos.186 & 187/Ahd/2015 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Page 3 of 5 It is noted that the information received in respect of the above parties from the Sales Tax Dept were specific. The entire method of issuing bogus bills was accepted by various owners of the above mentioned parties

GUJARAT VAIBHAV PUBLICATIONS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 148 of the Act on 13.02.2019. In the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer had treated the purchase of Rs.2,91,37,222/- made by the assessee from M/s. Vandana Raj Corporation as bogus and 15% of the purchases was considered as income of the assessee and accordingly an addition of Rs.43,70

GUJARAT VAIBHAV PUBLICATIONS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 148 of the Act on 13.02.2019. In the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer had treated the purchase of Rs.2,91,37,222/- made by the assessee from M/s. Vandana Raj Corporation as bogus and 15% of the purchases was considered as income of the assessee and accordingly an addition of Rs.43,70

BALDEVBHAI LALABHAI LUHAR,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(2), PRATYAKSHAR BHAVAN,AHMEDABAD

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

70,07,503/-. Accordingly, the AO treated the purchases from the parties as bogus and rejected the books of account of the assessee u/s.145 of the Act. Further, the AO was of the view that the GP ratio in this line of business of assessee is namely in the range of 3 to 4 percent (i.e in the business

RAJENDRAKUMAR CHHANALAL SHAH,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, PATAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

70,915/-, (ii) total amounting to Rs. 12,61,68,630/-. 5. The Assessing Officer treated the purchases made from these two parties as bogus purchases on the ground that these two parties had not replied to the notices u/s 133(6) of the Act issued to them. The Assessing Officer, therefore, estimated

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

purchases may be disallowed, keeping into consideration the profit offered to tax by the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee had calculated NP at 16.09% of the Turnover. Accordingly, considering the observations made by the Ld. Assessing Officer in assessment order regarding the nature of sub-contracting expenses and looking into the totality of facts of the instant

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

purchases may be disallowed, keeping into consideration the profit offered to tax by the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee had calculated NP at 16.09% of the Turnover. Accordingly, considering the observations made by the Ld. Assessing Officer in assessment order regarding the nature of sub-contracting expenses and looking into the totality of facts of the instant

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

purchases may be disallowed, keeping into consideration the profit offered to tax by the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee had calculated NP at 16.09% of the Turnover. Accordingly, considering the observations made by the Ld. Assessing Officer in assessment order regarding the nature of sub-contracting expenses and looking into the totality of facts of the instant

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

purchases may be disallowed, keeping into consideration the profit offered to tax by the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee had calculated NP at 16.09% of the Turnover. Accordingly, considering the observations made by the Ld. Assessing Officer in assessment order regarding the nature of sub-contracting expenses and looking into the totality of facts of the instant

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

purchases may be disallowed, keeping into consideration the profit offered to tax by the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee had calculated NP at 16.09% of the Turnover. Accordingly, considering the observations made by the Ld. Assessing Officer in assessment order regarding the nature of sub-contracting expenses and looking into the totality of facts of the instant

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR vs. RUDRA GLOBAL INFRA PRODUCTS LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee, both are dismissed

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

70,93,619.00/- i.e. 390.995 M.T. of MS scrap which is almost equal to 0.5% of total raw material purchase during the year under review and just because of that party had not replied the notice u/s. 133(6), the assessing officer has considered it as bogus purchase. The appellant submitted in its reply that all the transactions which

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

70,880/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 31.03.2015 wherein the Assessing Officer made various additions including addition on account of alleged bogus purchases

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

70,880/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 31.03.2015 wherein the Assessing Officer made various additions including addition on account of alleged bogus purchases

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

70,880/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 31.03.2015 wherein the Assessing Officer made various additions including addition on account of alleged bogus purchases

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

70,880/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 31.03.2015 wherein the Assessing Officer made various additions including addition on account of alleged bogus purchases

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DEVRAJ INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all three appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanisl.

section uses the words “derived from” as against “attributable to”. The Ld. AO observed that the words “derived from” are much narrower than the words “attributable to” and the benefit of deduction is available in respect of the income of the first degree only. Placing reliance on Pandian Chemicals Ltd. 262 ITR 278 (SC) and Sterling Foods