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

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

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

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\nby the assessee, stand dismissed

purchases\nfrom parties whose existence or business activity could not be\nsubstantiated. The AO once again rejected the books of account\nunder section 145(3) and applied a GP rate of 12.5%. The CIT(A),\nwhile affirming the rejection of books, accepted the assessee's\ncontention that the GP rate of 12.5% was on the higher side, and\ntherefore scaled

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\nby the assessee, stand dismissed

purchases\nfrom parties whose existence or business activity could not be\nsubstantiated. The AO once again rejected the books of account\nunder section 145(3) and applied a GP rate of 12.5%. The CIT(A),\nwhile affirming the rejection of books, accepted the assessee's\ncontention that the GP rate of 12.5% was on the higher side, and\ntherefore scaled

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 of the Act treating the purchases from M/s. Mahadev Trading Co. as bogus, resulting in the assessed income being enhanced to Rs. 1,55,90

LEELA GREENSHIP RECYCLING PVT. LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR

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

section 69C of the Act treating the purchases from M/s.\nMahadev Trading Co. as bogus, resulting in the assessed income being\nenhanced to Rs.1,55,90

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR vs. RUDRA GLOBAL INFRA PRODUCTS LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee, both are dismissed

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

90% of payment done by the company are done online and through RTGS and NEFT mode which always restrict the bogus payments as online payments always done in account which is provided by supplier along with complete bank details of supplier. 6.5 It is, accordingly, submitted that the appellant has completed the onus or burden of proof of transaction with

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

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 148 of the Act. We take up this legal issue first for adjudication. Grounds Nos. 1 to 3: 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that, in this case, the assessment was reopened by the AO on the basis of the information circulated on Insight Portal of Department, wherein, it was mentioned that a search & seizure action

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 148 of the Act. We take up this legal issue first for adjudication. Grounds Nos. 1 to 3: 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that, in this case, the assessment was reopened by the AO on the basis of the information circulated on Insight Portal of Department, wherein, it was mentioned that a search & seizure action

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 148 of the Act. We take up this legal issue first for adjudication. Grounds Nos. 1 to 3: 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that, in this case, the assessment was reopened by the AO on the basis of the information circulated on Insight Portal of Department, wherein, it was mentioned that a search & seizure action

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby\nallowed

purchases made from other\nconcerns in other years, there were corresponding concerns in table 2 in the\nannexure to his statement. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the AO\nhas not mentioned about any entry, detail or document pointing out about the\nnature of transaction done by the assessee with the Dishman Group. The only\ninformation received

ASHVINBHAI KESHVLALA PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. I.T.O. WARD 2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2021-22

bogus purchase. Accordingly, the entire purchase from M/s. Yoro Bullion Pvt. Ltd was held as only billing entries and added to his income. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2022 at a total income of Rs.30,90

M/S. PANCHMAHAL STEEL LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the assessment years in question

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on January 30, 2013, which determined a revised loss of Rs. 5,35,90,266/-. This figure was later amended to Rs. 9,66,38,129/- following a Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order on May 22, 2014. In a subsequent investigation on September 16, 2016, the Assessing Officer discovered a show

M/S. PANCHMAHAL STEEL LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the assessment years in question

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on January 30, 2013, which determined a revised loss of Rs. 5,35,90,266/-. This figure was later amended to Rs. 9,66,38,129/- following a Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order on May 22, 2014. In a subsequent investigation on September 16, 2016, the Assessing Officer discovered a show

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. REKHA INDRAVADAN CHOKSHI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Department’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

bogus and fabricated. The assessing officer also observed that cash sales were intentionally bifurcated into small amounts in order to keep the sale value below Rs. 2 lacs to avoid mentioning PAN of the cash purchaser. Therefore, in nutshell, the total purchases of Rs. 25,90,09,722/- recorded in the books of accounts during the demonetization period

REKHABEN INDRAVADAN CHOKSHI,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-5(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Department’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

bogus and fabricated. The assessing officer also observed that cash sales were intentionally bifurcated into small amounts in order to keep the sale value below Rs. 2 lacs to avoid mentioning PAN of the cash purchaser. Therefore, in nutshell, the total purchases of Rs. 25,90,09,722/- recorded in the books of accounts during the demonetization period

SHYAM REALTIES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRLCE-2(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1387/Ahd/2024 & 1388/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shyam Realities The Dy.Cit, बनाम/ Tejendra Arcade Circle-2(2)(1) V/S. Ganji Farak Mill Compound Ahmedabad – 380 015 Rakhiyal Cross Road Rakhiyal, Ahmedabad – 380 021 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abvfs 2603 M (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee For Assessment Years (Ays) 2017–18 & 2018–19 Are Directed Against The Respective Appellate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 27.06.2024. In The Impugned Orders, The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Disallowance Of Interest On Unsecured Loans To The Extent Of Rs.36,69,000/- For A.Y. 2017–18 & Rs.38,94,295/- For A.Y. 2018–19, As Originally Disallowed By

90,51,606/- discrepancy) (alleged violation of section 269SS) 4. Rs. 47,16,513/- (bogus purchases) Assessed Rs. 204,97,229/- Rs. 51,04,16,994/- Income