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.

purchases of Rs. 91,18,800/- and bogus expenditure of Rs. 26,67,267/-. While computing taxable income under the head “Income from Business or Profession” the Ld. AO made disallowance of these items and consequently the taxable profit of business was enhanced to that extent. However the Ld. AO did not allow deduction u/s 80

M/S. BLUERAY TRADING PVT LTD.,MAHARASTRA vs. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

bogus share capital, when such share capital have been held to be genuine by Ld. CIT(A). In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nirma Chemicals Works Pvt. Ltd. 182 Taxman 183 (Gujarat), the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that the assessee company claimed relief under Section 80-I of the Act. The Assessing Officer allowed claim

SADBHAV ENGINEERING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed\nand that of the Revenue are dismissed

purchase\nexpenses.\n67. ISSUE NO.4 REGARDING TREATMENT OF ALLEGED BOGUS\nSUB-CONTRACT EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 69A AND 69C OF\nTHE ACT AND CHARGING THE SAME AT THE RATE SPECIFIED\nIN TERMS OF SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT.\n68. The next issue being taken for consideration is the\ntreatment of the alleged bogus sub-contract expenses as deemed\nincome

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.,(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

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

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, 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 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

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 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

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

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 JT. CIT, RANGE-9,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. UNIQUE METROPOILS,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

bogus purchases calculated at 12.5% of the purchases which is excessive when no such disallowance is called. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee reiterated that assessee had provided all details and evidences and vide reply dated 24-02- 2014, copy of PAN card of parties, confirmation of ledger account duly signed by parties, copies of invoices and delivery challan

M/S. UNIQUE METROPOLIS,,AHMEDABAD vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,RANGE-9,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

bogus purchases calculated at 12.5% of the purchases which is excessive when no such disallowance is called. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee reiterated that assessee had provided all details and evidences and vide reply dated 24-02- 2014, copy of PAN card of parties, confirmation of ledger account duly signed by parties, copies of invoices and delivery challan