THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

purchases and vendors in question were part of the regular accounting, and no list of unverified or ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 bogus vendors was discovered during the search. Following the Vijaykumar D. Agarwal(supra) decision, the lack of such incriminating

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

purchases and vendors in question were part of the regular accounting, and no list of unverified or ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 bogus vendors was discovered during the search. Following the Vijaykumar D. Agarwal(supra) decision, the lack of such incriminating

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

purchases and vendors in question were part of the regular accounting, and no list of unverified or ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 bogus vendors was discovered during the search. Following the Vijaykumar D. Agarwal(supra) decision, the lack of such incriminating

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

purchases and vendors in question were part of the regular accounting, and no list of unverified or ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 bogus vendors was discovered during the search. Following the Vijaykumar D. Agarwal(supra) decision, the lack of such incriminating

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

purchases and vendors in question were part of the regular accounting, and no list of unverified or ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 bogus vendors was discovered during the search. Following the Vijaykumar D. Agarwal(supra) decision, the lack of such incriminating

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

purchases and vendors in question were part of the regular accounting, and no list of unverified or ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 bogus vendors was discovered during the search. Following the Vijaykumar D. Agarwal(supra) decision, the lack of such incriminating

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

purchases and vendors in question were part of the regular accounting, and no list of unverified or ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 bogus vendors was discovered during the search. Following the Vijaykumar D. Agarwal(supra) decision, the lack of such incriminating

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

purchases and vendors in question were part of the regular accounting, and no list of unverified or ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 bogus vendors was discovered during the search. Following the Vijaykumar D. Agarwal(supra) decision, the lack of such incriminating

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

purchases and vendors in question were part of the regular accounting, and no list of unverified or ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 bogus vendors was discovered during the search. Following the Vijaykumar D. Agarwal(supra) decision, the lack of such incriminating

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

purchases and vendors in question were part of the regular accounting, and no list of unverified or ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 bogus vendors was discovered during the search. Following the Vijaykumar D. Agarwal(supra) decision, the lack of such incriminating

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

purchases and vendors in question were part of the regular accounting, and no list of unverified or ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 bogus vendors was discovered during the search. Following the Vijaykumar D. Agarwal(supra) decision, the lack of such incriminating

THE ACIT,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

purchases and vendors in question were part of the regular accounting, and no list of unverified or ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 bogus vendors was discovered during the search. Following the Vijaykumar D. Agarwal(supra) decision, the lack of such incriminating

THE ACIT,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

purchases and vendors in question were part of the regular accounting, and no list of unverified or ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 bogus vendors was discovered during the search. Following the Vijaykumar D. Agarwal(supra) decision, the lack of such incriminating

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VEJALPUR vs. KRISHNAAVTAR J KABRA (HUF), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds in its appeal:- “1. Whether the CIT(A) has justified in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,51,71,221/- made on account of disallowance

HARI KRUSHNA MACHINTECH PRIVATE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 148 of the Act, the assessee field its return on 26.04.2019, declaring income of Rs.1,80,65,490/-. The assessee was asked to furnish certain details which was not furnished and hence the Assessing Officer observed that since the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the purchases made and no reply was filed, the said purchase of Rs.11.84

HARI KRUSHNA MACHINTECH PRIVATE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 148 of the Act, the assessee field its return on 26.04.2019, declaring income of Rs.1,80,65,490/-. The assessee was asked to furnish certain details which was not furnished and hence the Assessing Officer observed that since the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the purchases made and no reply was filed, the said purchase of Rs.11.84

HARI KRUSHNA MACHINTECH PRIVATE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 148 of the Act, the assessee field its return on 26.04.2019, declaring income of Rs.1,80,65,490/-. The assessee was asked to furnish certain details which was not furnished and hence the Assessing Officer observed that since the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the purchases made and no reply was filed, the said purchase of Rs.11.84

RAMJIBHAI KESARAJI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), VADODARA

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

section 69C towards alleged bogus purchases. The details of the same are as under:- Date Amount (Rs.) Amount credited to the account of 23.06.2017 2,68,611 Raghav Traders 23.06.2017 3,33,715 Helly Enterprises 23.06.2017 1,38,818 Laxmiraj Enterprises 11.08.2017 3,07,500 Laxmiraj Enterprises 16.10.2017 4,80