ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

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

purchase amount of Rs. 99,49,624/- under Section 69C of the Act, treating it as unexplained expenditure. 10.3 On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO's finding that the suppliers were non-genuine but disagreed with the 100% disallowance. Relying on jurisdictional precedents, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to 6% of the purchase value, concluding

H K ISPAT PVT. LTD.,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

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

purchase amount of Rs. 99,49,624/- under Section 69C of the Act, treating it as unexplained expenditure. 10.3 On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO's finding that the suppliers were non-genuine but disagreed with the 100% disallowance. Relying on jurisdictional precedents, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to 6% of the purchase value, concluding

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

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

purchase amount of Rs. 99,49,624/- under Section 69C of the Act, treating it as unexplained expenditure. 10.3 On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO's finding that the suppliers were non-genuine but disagreed with the 100% disallowance. Relying on jurisdictional precedents, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to 6% of the purchase value, concluding

THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE, MEHSANA vs. SHRI UMESH VADILAL KHAMAR, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 145(3) of the Act. Thus, there are two types of business components involved in this case, one is the taxing of the profit as per the Profit & Loss account based on the books of accounts regularly maintained and accepted to be correct by the A.O. and another business of unrecorded purchase and sale of the vegetables wherein

M/S. JOHN ENERGY LTD.,,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT., MEHSANA CIRCLE,, MEHSANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

89,91,186/- at 12.59%. The Assessing Officer observed that with respect to the unsecured loan taken by the assessee, the assessee was called for the details and further mentions that the letter of Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Ahmedabad, contained investigation report with respect to sharing of information of the beneficiaries who have obtained accommodation entries from Shri

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. JOHN ENERGY LTD.,, MEHSANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

89,91,186/- at 12.59%. The Assessing Officer observed that with respect to the unsecured loan taken by the assessee, the assessee was called for the details and further mentions that the letter of Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Ahmedabad, contained investigation report with respect to sharing of information of the beneficiaries who have obtained accommodation entries from Shri

PRINGALKUMAR PRAVEENBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the asessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

section 69C despite the purchases being duly recorded in the books and the source of expenditure being fully explained. 6. Without prejudice, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming 100% disallowance of purchases, contrary to settled judicial principles that only profit element, if any, can be brought to tax.” 3. The solitary grievance raised by the assessee

ANKUR FINE PRODUCTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). The case was selected for scrutiny for verification of large turnover reported in ITR vis-à-vis non- filing of the audit report and to verify the correctness of purchases, VAT declarations, and profit disclosures. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that there

SHAILESH SUBODHCHANDRA JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

89 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay)held that where assessee had purchased shares of penny stocks companies at lesser amount and within a year sold such shares at much higher amount and assessee had not tendered cogent evidence to explain as to how shares in an unknown company had jumped to such higher amount in no time and also failed to provide

SHAILESH SUBODHCHANDRA JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

89 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay)held that where assessee had purchased shares of penny stocks companies at lesser amount and within a year sold such shares at much higher amount and assessee had not tendered cogent evidence to explain as to how shares in an unknown company had jumped to such higher amount in no time and also failed to provide

SHAILESH S. JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

89 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay)held that where assessee had purchased shares of penny stocks companies at lesser amount and within a year sold such shares at much higher amount and assessee had not tendered cogent evidence to explain as to how shares in an unknown company had jumped to such higher amount in no time and also failed to provide

ARDOR OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumaray Sl.

89,750/- was received in the month of January, 2014 while M/s. Nikshal Properties Pvt. Ltd. had purchased the land for Rs.8,50,03,785/- on 27.01.2014. Thus, the sale consideration for sale of land, he demonstrated, was received by NPPL much earlier to the purchase of land by it. He also stated that this sale consideration of Rs.44 crores

ITO, WARD-1(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ARDOR OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumaray Sl.

89,750/- was received in the month of January, 2014 while M/s. Nikshal Properties Pvt. Ltd. had purchased the land for Rs.8,50,03,785/- on 27.01.2014. Thus, the sale consideration for sale of land, he demonstrated, was received by NPPL much earlier to the purchase of land by it. He also stated that this sale consideration of Rs.44 crores

NIKSHAL POPERTIES PVT. LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumaray Sl.

89,750/- was received in the month of January, 2014 while M/s. Nikshal Properties Pvt. Ltd. had purchased the land for Rs.8,50,03,785/- on 27.01.2014. Thus, the sale consideration for sale of land, he demonstrated, was received by NPPL much earlier to the purchase of land by it. He also stated that this sale consideration of Rs.44 crores

INCOME TAX OFFICER, 1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SHWETA MANISH JAIN, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

purchases from Shri Kirit D. Patel during the year under consideration? ITO vs. Shweta Manish Jain Asst.Year –2018-19 - 2– 3. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground, which may be necessary. 4. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and that

M/S. FLOURISH PUREFOODS PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-2(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. No.518/Ahd/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Flourish Purefoods Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 11-12, Ecs House, Garden View, Tax, Nr. Global Hospital, Bodakdev, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad-380054 Ahmedabad [Pan No.Aadcv2683B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

89,000.00 Bhemabhai Desai Dr Dr 11.2 It was pointed out by the learned AR before us that the amount received from the land aggregator namely Shri Kanjibhai Desai represents the own money of the assessee which was advanced on the earlier occasion and the same was returned in the year under consideration on account of non-execution

SHRI SANJAYBHAI RAMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(5),, BHAVNAGAR

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 452/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015

89 (SC) as the facts in that case was quite different from the case of appellant. 7. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - VI erred in law and on facts in confirming the initiating the penalty proceeding u/s 271(1) of Act. 8. The submissions made by the appellant before the Ld Assessing Officer/CIT(A)-VI has not properly

SMT. SHITAL SANJAYBHAI PATEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(5),, BHAVNAGAR

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 452/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015

89 (SC) as the facts in that case was quite different from the case of appellant. 7. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - VI erred in law and on facts in confirming the initiating the penalty proceeding u/s 271(1) of Act. 8. The submissions made by the appellant before the Ld Assessing Officer/CIT(A)-VI has not properly