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

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

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

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 ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. PANKAJ COTTON INDUSTRIES, PATAN

bogus purchases from Rs. 28819545/- to Rs. 7204886/- only, deleting admitted undisclosed income addition of Rs. 5691610/- and partly upholding

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

income in the hands of the assessee. This contention of the assessee cannot be accepted as the assessee has debited bogus purchase (expenditure) and reduced its profit to the extent of Rs.29,97,477/-, and hence entire bogus purchase are liable to be disallowed. This view has also been held by the jurisdictional High Court in the case

BALDEVBHAI LALABHAI LUHAR,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(2), PRATYAKSHAR BHAVAN,AHMEDABAD

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

bogus purchases. It may be deleted. 3. In law, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer has grossly erred in initiating the proceedings for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) when Baldevbhai L Luhar vs. ITO Asst.Year 2015-16 - 2– no such penalty is leviable. The proceedings are wrongly initiated. He may be directed to withdraw

SHRI MUKESH RASIKLAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENT.WARD-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Suchitra Kambleasstt Year - 2001-02

purchased 24300 shares of Zenith Info amounting to Rs. 21,77,280/- which was shown in the balance sheet as closing stock, however, in the profit & loss account the assessee has accounted loss from Zenith Info amounting to Rs. 16,30,530/- as against no opening stock of the shares. Accordingly, the assessee has claimed bogus loss to the tune

SHRI MUKESH R.SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-6,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Suchitra Kambleasstt Year - 2001-02

purchased 24300 shares of Zenith Info amounting to Rs. 21,77,280/- which was shown in the balance sheet as closing stock, however, in the profit & loss account the assessee has accounted loss from Zenith Info amounting to Rs. 16,30,530/- as against no opening stock of the shares. Accordingly, the assessee has claimed bogus loss to the tune

SHRI MUKESH R.SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-6,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Suchitra Kambleasstt Year - 2001-02

purchased 24300 shares of Zenith Info amounting to Rs. 21,77,280/- which was shown in the balance sheet as closing stock, however, in the profit & loss account the assessee has accounted loss from Zenith Info amounting to Rs. 16,30,530/- as against no opening stock of the shares. Accordingly, the assessee has claimed bogus loss to the tune

SHRI MUKESH R.SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENT.WARD-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Suchitra Kambleasstt Year - 2001-02

purchased 24300 shares of Zenith Info amounting to Rs. 21,77,280/- which was shown in the balance sheet as closing stock, however, in the profit & loss account the assessee has accounted loss from Zenith Info amounting to Rs. 16,30,530/- as against no opening stock of the shares. Accordingly, the assessee has claimed bogus loss to the tune

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CIMS HOSPITAL (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS CARE CARDIOVASCULAR CONSULTANT P.LTD.), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

undisclosed income has not been find out. • There is no finding about the other persons who had also contributed cash for purchase of land by CCCPL. • The concerned officer had satisfied with the confirmation of payment of cash by the respective doctor and receipt of cash on exit • There is no finding that who has returned the cash. From

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CIMS HOSPITAL (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS CARE CARDIOVASCULAR CONSULTANT P.LTD.), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

undisclosed income has not been find out. • There is no finding about the other persons who had also contributed cash for purchase of land by CCCPL. • The concerned officer had satisfied with the confirmation of payment of cash by the respective doctor and receipt of cash on exit • There is no finding that who has returned the cash. From

SWATI PROCON P. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

undisclosed income for preceding assessment year i.e A.Y 2013-14 and therefore could not reduce the said amount from the sales of the impugned year. Accordingly, addition of Rs. 6,85,00,000/- was added to the income of the assessee. 7. The assessee reiterated his arguments before the ld. CIT(A), who found no merit in the same

SHUKAN BUILDERS,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT(OSD), CIRCLE-9,, AHMEDABAD

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

bogus purchases. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. 17. The next issue arises by the assessee is that the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO for Rs.6,01,000/- on account of commission expenses. 18. The assessee during the year has claimed to have incurred commission expenses amounting

THE DCIT(OSD), CIRCLE-9,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. SHUKAN BUILDERS,, AHMEDABAD

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

bogus purchases. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. 17. The next issue arises by the assessee is that the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO for Rs.6,01,000/- on account of commission expenses. 18. The assessee during the year has claimed to have incurred commission expenses amounting

SHRI MUKESH HARJIBHAI PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Mukesh Harjibhai Patel Acit, Cir.5(3) 9, Malhar Bungalows Vs Ahmedabad. Shilaj Nandoli Road Kalol, Gandhinagar. Pan : Abvp P9561 H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Written Submissions Revenue By : Shri J.L. Bhatia, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 8.6.2018 In Cit(A)-5/Acit Cir.5(3)/10028/2017-18 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-5, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] Relating To The Assessment Year 2010-11 Against Confirmation Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” For Short).

undisclosed income from Malhar Dairy Farm was upheld and Rs.10,88,357/- on account of bogus purchase were being upheld

SHRI DIPESH PRABHUDAS KOTHARI, HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 2798/Ahd/2013 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Shri Dipesh Prabhudas Kothari Income Tax Officer, Huf, Vs. Ward 3(2), 315, Astodia, Ahmedabad. Rangati Bazar, Ahmedabad-380002. Pan: Aabhk2547P

undisclosed purchases should not exceed beyond 1% of the bogus purchase. However, since the allegation before us is that the assessee has shown bogus purchases, thus we are of the view that the profit shown by the assessee in the books of accounts cannot be adopted. As such, we are of the view that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST, , AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

undisclosed cash transactions of earlier years provide basis for extrapolation. He also contended that assessee’s involvement in fraudulent activities, itself is violation of section 13. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and noted that Trustees were found to be receiving portions of staff salaries back in cash after payments were made via cheques. Blank bearer cheques were collected

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

undisclosed cash transactions of earlier years provide basis for extrapolation. He also contended that assessee’s involvement in fraudulent activities, itself is violation of section 13. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and noted that Trustees were found to be receiving portions of staff salaries back in cash after payments were made via cheques. Blank bearer cheques were collected