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

bogus purchases of the assessee. 9. During the course of hearing before us, the learned Departmental Representative (DR) placed reliance upon the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer for all three assessment years under consideration. 10. The learned Authorised Representative (AR), appearing on behalf of the assessee, reiterated the factual matrix as recorded in the orders of the lower

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

bogus purchases of the assessee. 9. During the course of hearing before us, the learned Departmental Representative (DR) placed reliance upon the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer for all three assessment years under consideration. 10. The learned Authorised Representative (AR), appearing on behalf of the assessee, reiterated the factual matrix as recorded in the orders of the lower

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

bogus purchases of the assessee. 9. During the course of hearing before us, the learned Departmental Representative (DR) placed reliance upon the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer for all three assessment years under consideration. 10. The learned Authorised Representative (AR), appearing on behalf of the assessee, reiterated the factual matrix as recorded in the orders of the lower

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

bogus\npurchases of the assessee.\n9. During the course of hearing before us, the learned\nDepartmental Representative (DR) placed reliance upon the\nassessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer for all three\n assessment years under consideration.\n10. The learned Authorised Representative (AR), appearing on\nbehalf of the assessee, reiterated the factual matrix as recorded\nin the orders

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

bogus\npurchases of the assessee.\n9. During the course of hearing before us, the learned\nDepartmental Representative (DR) placed reliance upon the\nassessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer for all three\n assessment years under consideration.\n10. The learned Authorised Representative (AR), appearing on\nbehalf of the assessee, reiterated the factual matrix as recorded\nin the orders

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

TDS records. 15. There was no enquiry by the Assessing Officer to treat the purchases as bogus. In the course

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. M/S. ULTRATECH TRANSMISSION PVT. LTD, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

purchase bills, wage registers etc. (iii) In case of majority of sub- contractors, the return of income was filed by the employees/owner of M/s Ultratech transmissions. (iv) The contractors filed income tax returns showing’s income under section 44AD of the Act, though they were supposed to maintain the books of accounts (v) The bank accounts

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. ULTRA TECH TRANSMISSION,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

purchase bills, wage registers etc. (iii) In case of majority of sub- contractors, the return of income was filed by the employees/owner of M/s Ultratech transmissions. (iv) The contractors filed income tax returns showing’s income under section 44AD of the Act, though they were supposed to maintain the books of accounts (v) The bank accounts

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. M/S. ULTRA TECH TRANSMISSION,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

purchase bills, wage registers etc. (iii) In case of majority of sub- contractors, the return of income was filed by the employees/owner of M/s Ultratech transmissions. (iv) The contractors filed income tax returns showing’s income under section 44AD of the Act, though they were supposed to maintain the books of accounts (v) The bank accounts

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. M/S. ULTRA TECH TRANSMISSION,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

purchase bills, wage registers etc. (iii) In case of majority of sub- contractors, the return of income was filed by the employees/owner of M/s Ultratech transmissions. (iv) The contractors filed income tax returns showing’s income under section 44AD of the Act, though they were supposed to maintain the books of accounts (v) The bank accounts

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. M/S. ULTRA TECH TRANSMISSION,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

purchase bills, wage registers etc. (iii) In case of majority of sub- contractors, the return of income was filed by the employees/owner of M/s Ultratech transmissions. (iv) The contractors filed income tax returns showing’s income under section 44AD of the Act, though they were supposed to maintain the books of accounts (v) The bank accounts

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

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

bogus purchases, totalling to Rs.17.78 lakhs. 18.3. The assessee submitted bills, TDS details, and some vendor confirmations. They argued that

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

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

bogus purchases, totalling to Rs.17.78 lakhs. 18.3. The assessee submitted bills, TDS details, and some vendor confirmations. They argued that

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

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

bogus purchases, totalling to Rs.17.78 lakhs. 18.3. The assessee submitted bills, TDS details, and some vendor confirmations. They argued that

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

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

bogus purchases, totalling to Rs.17.78 lakhs. 18.3. The assessee submitted bills, TDS details, and some vendor confirmations. They argued that

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

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

bogus purchases, totalling to Rs.17.78 lakhs. 18.3. The assessee submitted bills, TDS details, and some vendor confirmations. They argued that

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

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

bogus purchases, totalling to Rs.17.78 lakhs. 18.3. The assessee submitted bills, TDS details, and some vendor confirmations. They argued that

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

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

bogus purchases, totalling to Rs.17.78 lakhs. 18.3. The assessee submitted bills, TDS details, and some vendor confirmations. They argued that

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

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

bogus purchases, totalling to Rs.17.78 lakhs. 18.3. The assessee submitted bills, TDS details, and some vendor confirmations. They argued that