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

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

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

SAKET M JAINI(HUF),AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-5, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 579/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Saket M. Jain (Huf), The Pr. Commissioner Of 403, 3Rd Eye Two, Vs. Income Tax-2, Nr. Joyalukkas Show Room, Ahmedabad. Opp. Parimal Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad.

73,910/- only on the ground that the assessee has not furnished the reason for the lower Gross Profit. 5. Subsequently the Pr. CIT from the assessment records observed that the assessment framed under section 147 is erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of Revenue for the reason that once it was held by the AO that the purchase

SHRI PRAVIN SHIVLAL SHAH,,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3),, BARODA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

section 69 of the I.T.Act, 1961." ITA Nos. 1379 & 1380/Ahd/2016 20 . A.Ys. 2010-11-2011-12 4. Against the addition of 12.5% of the total purchase, assessee preferred first statutory appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who held that the undisclosed income of the appellant should be assessed @ 10% of purchase shown to have been made by him from

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

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. 2. Grievances raised in the appals, which are common but for amounts involved, are as follows :- ITA Nos.2377 & 2378/Ahd/2015 C.O. Nos.186 & 187/Ahd/2015 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Page 2 of 5 “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. 2. Grievances raised in the appals, which are common but for amounts involved, are as follows :- ITA Nos.2377 & 2378/Ahd/2015 C.O. Nos.186 & 187/Ahd/2015 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Page 2 of 5 “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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

73,637/- 4 3. Madhav Broker 3,01,415/- Total: 29,97,477/- Further, penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are also initiated separately on the unproved/bogus purchases for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee company.” 3. Aggrieved against this order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A)-8, Ahmedabad

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. PANKAJ COTTON INDUSTRIES, PATAN

bogus purchases disallowance @ 25% would cover this latter figure as well. The CIT(A) lastly reverses Assessing Officer’s findings in part making section 68 addition of Rs. 32385600/- to the tune of Rs. 449304/- only as under: “In ground no.5 the appellant has disputed the addition of Rs.3,23,85,600 being unexplained cash credit. Perusal of para

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

73,48,000/-(forming part of Rs 1,08,03,168/-) towards alleged bogus purchases from Jabir Hussain U., despite the fact that the Ld. CIT(A), vide order dated 20.03.2017, had already allowed this issue The Appellant has not raised this matter before the Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad nor has the department challenged the same. The impugned addition, being

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

73,48,000/-(forming part of Rs 1,08,03,168/-) towards alleged bogus purchases from Jabir Hussain U., despite the fact that the Ld. CIT(A), vide order dated 20.03.2017, had already allowed this issue The Appellant has not raised this matter before the Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad nor has the department challenged the same. The impugned addition, being

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

73,48,000/-(forming part of Rs 1,08,03,168/-) towards alleged bogus purchases from Jabir Hussain U., despite the fact that the Ld. CIT(A), vide order dated 20.03.2017, had already allowed this issue The Appellant has not raised this matter before the Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad nor has the department challenged the same. The impugned addition, being

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

73,48,000/-(forming part of Rs 1,08,03,168/-) towards alleged bogus purchases from Jabir Hussain U., despite the fact that the Ld. CIT(A), vide order dated 20.03.2017, had already allowed this issue The Appellant has not raised this matter before the Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad nor has the department challenged the same. The impugned addition, being

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-6(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. ARMEE INFOTECH,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA No.1778/Ahd/2016 (by Revenue) is dismissed, and ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1778/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Acit,Cir.6(1), Vs. Armee Infotech Ahmedabad. 1002, Akik Building Opp: Rajpath Club, Sg Highway, Ahmedabad 380 0054. Pan : Aaifa 4964 D

73,155/- i.e. 2.38% of alleged bogus purchase of Rs.1,56,78,802/- . 16. We have looked into all these details. Before the ld.CIT(A), assessee has produced decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd., Tax Appeal No.840 of 2013, and also relied upon in the case of Mayank Diamonds

M/S. ARMEE INFOTECH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA No.1778/Ahd/2016 (by Revenue) is dismissed, and ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1778/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Acit,Cir.6(1), Vs. Armee Infotech Ahmedabad. 1002, Akik Building Opp: Rajpath Club, Sg Highway, Ahmedabad 380 0054. Pan : Aaifa 4964 D

73,155/- i.e. 2.38% of alleged bogus purchase of Rs.1,56,78,802/- . 16. We have looked into all these details. Before the ld.CIT(A), assessee has produced decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd., Tax Appeal No.840 of 2013, and also relied upon in the case of Mayank Diamonds

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

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 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