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

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

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

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

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

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

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

section 44AB of the Act placed at PB page No.33. He also drew our attention to the specific bill of Mayank Impex purchasing 32.40 Carat of cut and polished diamonds amounting to Rs.6,80,400/- which was found to be bogus. In this regard he drew attention to evidence for using these diamonds for making ornaments, which were also filed

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

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

9 I.T.A No. 1477/Ahd/17 & 1826/Ahd/2016 & Ors. A.Y. 2011-12 & Ors. Page No such circumstances there was no recourse left but to disallow the entire expenses of sales promotion relating to these parties. 15. The ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other contended that the ld. CIT(A) had rightly held that the distribution of the gift articles to various

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

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

9 I.T.A No. 1477/Ahd/17 & 1826/Ahd/2016 & Ors. A.Y. 2011-12 & Ors. Page No such circumstances there was no recourse left but to disallow the entire expenses of sales promotion relating to these parties. 15. The ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other contended that the ld. CIT(A) had rightly held that the distribution of the gift articles to various

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

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

9 I.T.A No. 1477/Ahd/17 & 1826/Ahd/2016 & Ors. A.Y. 2011-12 & Ors. Page No such circumstances there was no recourse left but to disallow the entire expenses of sales promotion relating to these parties. 15. The ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other contended that the ld. CIT(A) had rightly held that the distribution of the gift articles to various

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

9,04,97,678/- worth of purchases as bogus purchases. On going through the case records, PCIT observed that despite recognizing the dubious nature of these transactions, the A.O. only added a fraction of the alleged bogus purchases, resulting in what was deemed an erroneous and prejudicial order. On February 16, 2024, a notice under Section

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

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 to the effect that they had provided accommodation entries through various concerns. His findings in this regard are at para 8.4of his order

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

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 to the effect that they had provided accommodation entries through various concerns. His findings in this regard are at para 8.4of his order

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 as bogus and on other hand estimating the profit instead of treating the sales made by the assessee as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 7.1 In view of the above the Learned Pr. CIT held the assessment order framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act vide order dated 26/12/2016 Asstt

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)

9) If the purchases from the above 5 parties are disallowed by treating them as bogus, it will lead to an absurd situation since sales of products purchased from these parties have already been treated as income Thus the sales related to these purchases will be taxed entirely without any deduction toward cost of purchases. What should be taxed

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

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

bogus purchase against the assessee. The said addition was deleted by the ld. CIT(A). In fact, the ld. ITAT, on the premise of difference of opinion, sent down the matter to the Assessing Officer for readjudication of the issue. He further submitted before us that there was no conclusive evidence which shows that there is a concealment of income

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

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

9] [In favour of assessee] Even in the case of the appellant firm the purchases though not verifiable the utilization of the material has been explained. iii. CIT v Bholanath Polyfab (P) Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj.):- Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 7967 - Undisclosed investments [Bogus

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

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

9] [In favour of assessee] Even in the case of the appellant firm the purchases though not verifiable the utilization of the material has been explained. iii. CIT v Bholanath Polyfab (P) Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj.):- Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 7967 - Undisclosed investments [Bogus

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

Section 69C. This fold of reasoning has found even an express approval of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case -NK Proteins Ltd vs DCIT [2017] 84 taxmann.com 195 (SC). Hence, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, where there is complete failure of the appellant in leading any independent evidence in support of the genuineness

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR vs. LEELA GREENSHIP RECYCLING PRIVATE LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of above directions

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 2111/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Leela Greenship Recycling Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Office No.303, 3Rd Floor, बनाम/ Commissioner V/S. B Wing, Leela Efcee, Of Income Tax, Near Aksharwadi Temple, Circle-1, Waghawadi Road, Bhavnagar. Bhavnagar-364002. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aagcg8956L

section 69C was factually and legally misplaced. However, while fully accepting the genuineness of the payments and noting that the sales have also been offered to tax, the learned CIT(A) took into account the possibility of inflation of purchases or involvement of accommodation bills to some extent and, therefore, proceeded to estimate the profit element embedded in such purchases