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

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 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

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

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby\nallowed

section 148 of the Act. We take up this legal issue\nfirst for adjudication.\nGrounds Nos.1 to 3:\n4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that, in this case, the\nassessment was reopened by the AO on the basis of the information circulated\non Insight Portal of Department, wherein, it was mentioned that a search &\nseizure action

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 148 of the Act. We take up this legal issue first for adjudication. Grounds Nos. 1 to 3: 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that, in this case, the assessment was reopened by the AO on the basis of the information circulated on Insight Portal of Department, wherein, it was mentioned that a search & seizure action

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 148 of the Act. We take up this legal issue first for adjudication. Grounds Nos. 1 to 3: 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that, in this case, the assessment was reopened by the AO on the basis of the information circulated on Insight Portal of Department, wherein, it was mentioned that a search & seizure action

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 148 of the Act. We take up this legal issue first for adjudication. Grounds Nos. 1 to 3: 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that, in this case, the assessment was reopened by the AO on the basis of the information circulated on Insight Portal of Department, wherein, it was mentioned that a search & seizure action

M/S. HARSIDDH QUARRY WORKS,ARAVALLI vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.103/Ahd/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 M/S. Harsiddh Quarry Works, Principal Commissioner Of At Alva (Vatrak), Vs. Income Tax, Taluka Bayad, Ahmedabad. District Aravalli, Alva(Vaarak)-383325. Pan: Aaifh0303H

70,000/- in the purchase of land at block/ survey No.100, khata No.169, Moje-Alva, (Vatrak), taluka Bayad, district Arvalli, Gujarat during the year under consideration out of which amount of Rs.20,01,000/- was invested through unexplained source of income as the assessee has failed to respond in this regard despite two specific opportunities. Further, the assessee firm also

M/S. ANAM PESTICIDES PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 145(3) of the Act and rejected the book results and estimated the net profit @ 12% of total turnover. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 3,07,35,264/- (after allowing the credit for net profit already disclosed by the assessee of Rs. 4,56,268/-) by estimating the net profit @ 12% of the total turnover

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

70,832/- (loan balance 3. Rs. 33,90,51,606/- discrepancy) (alleged violation of section 269SS) 4. Rs. 47,16,513/- (bogus purchases

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

70,832/- (loan balance 3. Rs. 33,90,51,606/- discrepancy) (alleged violation of section 269SS) 4. Rs. 47,16,513/- (bogus purchases

PRECISION INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 270A of the Act. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal. 3. Shri. Parimalsinh B. Parmar, the Ld. A.R of the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) while adjudicating the appeals