MADHAV COPPER LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

Section of AO's Order 147 r.w.s. 144B 143(3) r.w.s. 144B 143(3) r.w.s. 144B Amount of Alleged Bogus Purchases added (Rs.) 92,95,26,352/- 49,84,90,503/- 412,48,43,029/- Gross Profit Rate Applied by AO 12.50% 12.50% 12.50% Addition Made

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 purchases, since it was not disputed that purchases were actually made and payments for same were made through account payee cheque and further, assessee ITA No.254 to 256 and 274 to 276 /Ahd/2024 12 had already declared 7.5 per cent as gross profit, Tribunal was justified in restricting addition to 8 per cent of gross profit on impugned purchase

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 purchases, since it was not disputed that purchases were actually made and payments for same were made through account payee cheque and further, assessee ITA No.254 to 256 and 274 to 276 /Ahd/2024 12 had already declared 7.5 per cent as gross profit, Tribunal was justified in restricting addition to 8 per cent of gross profit on impugned purchase

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 purchases, since it was not disputed that purchases were actually made and payments for same were made through account payee cheque and further, assessee ITA No.254 to 256 and 274 to 276 /Ahd/2024 12 had already declared 7.5 per cent as gross profit, Tribunal was justified in restricting addition to 8 per cent of gross profit on impugned purchase

SHRI BHUPENDRA S. CHOKSHI,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1 (2), , VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year : 2007-08 Shri Bhupendra S. Chokshi Dcit, Cir.1(2) Prop: S. Kanjibhai Jewellers Vs Vadodara. Sb-35-36, Siddarth Complex Rc Dutt Road Vadodara 390 005 Pan : Abfpc 5333C

bogus purchases. 8. The ld.counsel for the assessee pleaded that in the facts of the present case, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court / Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court was not applicable. He pointed out that sufficient evidences had been filed to the Revenue authorities proving the purchases of cut and un-cut diamonds. In this regard he drew

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT TERCE LABORATORIES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

8 I.T.A No. 1477/Ahd/17 & 1826/Ahd/2016 & Ors. A.Y. 2011-12 & Ors. Page No address of the recipient nor did they state the gift articles receipt. The A.O. therefore had commented in his remand report no such receipt could be taken. 12. Ld. D.R. thereafter pointed out that the assessee submitted a rejoinder to the remand report stating that the quantity stock

THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT TERCE LABORATORIES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

8 I.T.A No. 1477/Ahd/17 & 1826/Ahd/2016 & Ors. A.Y. 2011-12 & Ors. Page No address of the recipient nor did they state the gift articles receipt. The A.O. therefore had commented in his remand report no such receipt could be taken. 12. Ld. D.R. thereafter pointed out that the assessee submitted a rejoinder to the remand report stating that the quantity stock

THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT TERCE LABORATORIES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

8 I.T.A No. 1477/Ahd/17 & 1826/Ahd/2016 & Ors. A.Y. 2011-12 & Ors. Page No address of the recipient nor did they state the gift articles receipt. The A.O. therefore had commented in his remand report no such receipt could be taken. 12. Ld. D.R. thereafter pointed out that the assessee submitted a rejoinder to the remand report stating that the quantity stock

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.

purchases made by the assessee from M/s Greenwell Orchard was bogus. However, the AO in the assessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act has made addition after estimating the GP at the rate of 8

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)

8) Thus, all purchases are genuine, duly reflected in the stock register and all payments have been made through regular banking channels only. Sales have been made out of the said purchases for which payments have been received. It is highly unfair to propose to- treat purchases from the impugned five parties as bogus simply on some third party statement

THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(5),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. SHUBH CONSTRUCTION,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Ld. ClT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of R/1,08,94,360/-out of the total addition made of Rs.1,24,50,697/- on account of bogus purchases: I.T.A

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

bogus and 15% of the purchases was considered as income of the assessee and accordingly an addition of Rs.43,70,583/- was made. No transaction was found made with the other party M/s. A.M. Enterprise during the year. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act on 27.12.2019 at total income of Rs.42

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

bogus and 15% of the purchases was considered as income of the assessee and accordingly an addition of Rs.43,70,583/- was made. No transaction was found made with the other party M/s. A.M. Enterprise during the year. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act on 27.12.2019 at total income of Rs.42

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

bogus purchases in accordance with law and thus revision under section. 263 is nothing but a change of opinion and hence order u/s. 263 is bad in law. 2. The directions given to AO in para 7, 7.1 and 8

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

M/S. GSP CROP SCIENCE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

8 14. In fact, therefore, he found the AO’s inquiries to have adequately established that the purchases were bogus. ITA No.891 and 892/Ahd/2018 9 15. Coming to the assessment order, we note that the AO rejected all contentions made by the assessee before him, and treated the purchases as bogus on the basis of statement of entry providers

M/S. GSP CROP SCIENCE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

8 14. In fact, therefore, he found the AO’s inquiries to have adequately established that the purchases were bogus. ITA No.891 and 892/Ahd/2018 9 15. Coming to the assessment order, we note that the AO rejected all contentions made by the assessee before him, and treated the purchases as bogus on the basis of statement of entry providers

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

8, Ahmedabad relating to the Asst.Year 2008-09. 2. Brief facts of the case is that, this is the second round of appeal before this Tribunal. As against original assessment order dated 24.12.2010 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short), the matter travelled before the ITAT, Mumbai Bench ‘F’ and vide order

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1),, BARODA vs. M/S/ AMAR MINING COMPANY,, BARODA

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 1998-99

8% and in subsequent years the appellant has disclosed GP rate ranging between 6-8%. In view of this, the addition made is also not justified on this score. The AO was not justified in treating the purchase bogus. The addition made by the AO of Rs.68,55,330/-is therefore, deleted." Thus, in the assessment order made