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

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

purchase towards its possible profit, we do not find any reason to entertain the appeal. In the result, Tax Appeal is dismissed. (b) Commissioner of Income-tax -II v. Gujarat Ambuja Export Ltd. [2014] 43 taxmann.com 244 (Gujarat) I. Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investments (Bogus

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

unexplained investment for the purchase of land by holding that the said amount should be taxed in the hands of the company M/s. CCCPL " 41. In this case, the total amount stated to be invested in CCCPL was as under: Dr. Urmil Shah 4/24/2007 30,00,000 5/2/2007 5,00,000 10/14/2007 5,00,000 10/15/2007 2,50,000 1/23/2008

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

unexplained investment for the purchase of land by holding that the said amount should be taxed in the hands of the company M/s. CCCPL " 41. In this case, the total amount stated to be invested in CCCPL was as under: Dr. Urmil Shah 4/24/2007 30,00,000 5/2/2007 5,00,000 10/14/2007 5,00,000 10/15/2007 2,50,000 1/23/2008

SHRI UMANG HIRALAL THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2150/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Dharmadev House, Income-Tax, Shyamal Cross Road, Satellite, Central Circle 1(1), Ahmedabad – 380015 Ahmedabad Pan : Aavpt 8621 R आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2548/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. 305, Sahajanand Plaza, Bhatta Income-Tax, Ch Ar Rasta, Paldi, Ahmedabad Central Circle 1(1), Pan : Aavpt 8621 R Ahmedabad अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" यथ" िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, Cit-Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

purchase bill of Mahendra & Co. to be bogus, and accordingly he treated the source of investment in jewellery to be unexplained

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI UMANG H. THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2150/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Dharmadev House, Income-Tax, Shyamal Cross Road, Satellite, Central Circle 1(1), Ahmedabad – 380015 Ahmedabad Pan : Aavpt 8621 R आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2548/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. 305, Sahajanand Plaza, Bhatta Income-Tax, Ch Ar Rasta, Paldi, Ahmedabad Central Circle 1(1), Pan : Aavpt 8621 R Ahmedabad अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" यथ" िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, Cit-Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

purchase bill of Mahendra & Co. to be bogus, and accordingly he treated the source of investment in jewellery to be unexplained

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)

unexplained investment and hence the action of the Id. CIT(Appeals) in not directing the Id. A.O. to delete the impugned addition made u/s 69 of the Act even after accepting that provisions of Section 69 of the Act are not applicable and instead confirming addition as undisclosed business income is unjustifiable and unwarranted. Your appellant therefore prays your Honour

M/S. ACCRA PAC (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ground numbers 5 to 7 of the assessee’s appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

bogus purchases may be disallowed, keeping into consideration the profit offered to tax by the assessee. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we are of the view that in the instant set of facts 10% of the above purchases may be disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. 7.3 In the result, Ground Number

BHOGILAL ODHAVJI INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2889/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Bhogilal Odhavji Industrial Dcit, बनाम/ Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Circle -1(1), Vs. Asarva Bethak, Asarva, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380 016. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacv 6980 D .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B. R. Popat, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Ms. Vasundhara Upmanya. Cit-D.R.

purchase of land. There is also no doubt that the payment during the year has been duly accepted by the AO in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, in our considered view, the investment made by the assessee cannot be treated as unexplained investment in the year under consideration. 9.2 Without prejudice to the above

HIRAL TAPANKUMAR CHUDGAR,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

bogus accommodation entries. Purchase was made through BSE platform. Transaction was through banking channel after all, Investment in share scrip is capital in nature. If at all one has to tax then it has to be Capital Gain and not entire investment. For taxation of capital gain there has to be transfer of capital within the meaning

SADBHAV ENGINEERING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed\nand that of the Revenue are dismissed

purchase order,\netc.\nPara H of the order records that commissions were sent to\nDepartmental authorities in Mumbai to verify genuineness of the\nentities who in turn reported all of them to be bogus.\n28. Finally at Para I, the inference from all of the above is detailed\nmentioning all material found and relied upon for finding entities of\nK.C

SHRI JAYESH VASANTBHAI SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2),, AHMEDABAD

bogus and the assessee had not conducted any transaction of purchase and sale of grey cloth so as to justify his investment in land in cash from the same. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has come up in appeal before us raising the following grounds: 1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred on facts

DCIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ALPESHKUMAR C.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1908/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive In Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. Pan: Aeapp9489G

unexplained investment made by the assesses which was reflected by the alleged unaccounted sales the finding of ITA nos.1908& 1991/AHD/2018 Asstt. Year 2011-12 25 the Tribunal that only the gross profit on the said amount can be brought to tax does not call for any interference." Similarly the facts of the case of CIT vs. Samir Synthetics Mill

THE JT. CIT, RANGE-9,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. UNIQUE METROPOILS,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

bogus purchases calculated at 12.5% of the purchases which is excessive when no such disallowance is called. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee reiterated that assessee had provided all details and evidences and vide reply dated 24-02- 2014, copy of PAN card of parties, confirmation of ledger account duly signed by parties, copies of invoices and delivery challan

M/S. UNIQUE METROPOLIS,,AHMEDABAD vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,RANGE-9,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

bogus purchases calculated at 12.5% of the purchases which is excessive when no such disallowance is called. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee reiterated that assessee had provided all details and evidences and vide reply dated 24-02- 2014, copy of PAN card of parties, confirmation of ledger account duly signed by parties, copies of invoices and delivery challan

HIRAL TAPANKUMAR CHUDGAR,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And\nShri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Accountant Member\nITA Nos 43 & 44/Ahd/2025\nAssessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19\nHiral Tapankumar\nChudgar\n201/A, Premdarshan,\nBehind Jay Ambe School,\nSamasavli Raod, Vemali,\nVadodara-390008,\nGujarat\nPAN: ANCPC4000H\n(Appellant)\nIncome Tax Officer\nWard-1(3)(1),\nVs Vadodara\n(Respondent)\nAssessee Represented:\nShri Deepak Shah, A.R.\nRevenue Represented:\nShri Abhijit, Sr.D.R.\nDate of hearing\n: 18-06-

bogus\naccommodation entries. Purchase was made through BSE platform.\nTransaction was through banking channel after all, Investment in share\nscrip is capital in nature. If at all one has to tax then it has to be Capital\nGain and not entire investment. For taxation of capital gain there has to be\ntransfer of capital within the meaning

ASHAPURA STONE INDUSTRIES,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3 NOW WARD-1, ANAND

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member 1. Ita No.27/Ahd/2024 2. Ita No.28/Ahd/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 (Respectively) Ashapura Stone Industries The Income Tax Officer Nh No.8, Nr. Geb Sub-Station Vs Ward-3 (Now Ward-1) Vasad – 388 306 (Gujarat) Anand Pan: Aaufa 6762 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.T. Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Pertain To Different Assessment Years, But Involve Common Issues (Except Quantum In Appeal) & Hence Are Being Decided Together For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. The Appeals Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) - [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2012-13 & 2013-14, Both Dated 16/11/2023, Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Passed For Respective Assessment Years By Assessing Officer

unexplained investment for AY 2012-13 and AY 2013-14 respectively. For AY 2013-14, the AO also disallowed the depreciation of Rs.16,25,849/- claimed by the ITA Nos.27 & 28/Ahd/2024 Ashapura Stone Industries vs. ITO Asst. Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 assessee u/s.32 of the Act as the purchase of machinery was considered as bogus

ASHAPURA STONE INDUSTRIES,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3 NOW WARD-1, ANAND

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member 1. Ita No.27/Ahd/2024 2. Ita No.28/Ahd/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 (Respectively) Ashapura Stone Industries The Income Tax Officer Nh No.8, Nr. Geb Sub-Station Vs Ward-3 (Now Ward-1) Vasad – 388 306 (Gujarat) Anand Pan: Aaufa 6762 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.T. Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Pertain To Different Assessment Years, But Involve Common Issues (Except Quantum In Appeal) & Hence Are Being Decided Together For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. The Appeals Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) - [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2012-13 & 2013-14, Both Dated 16/11/2023, Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Passed For Respective Assessment Years By Assessing Officer

unexplained investment for AY 2012-13 and AY 2013-14 respectively. For AY 2013-14, the AO also disallowed the depreciation of Rs.16,25,849/- claimed by the ITA Nos.27 & 28/Ahd/2024 Ashapura Stone Industries vs. ITO Asst. Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 assessee u/s.32 of the Act as the purchase of machinery was considered as bogus

DINESHKUMAR CHUNILAL SHAH -HUF, (PROP. M/S. AMAR STEEL CORPO.) ,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed in terms and conditions hereinabove

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed) [Through Virtual Court]

purchases than matter can be heard. 5. On the other hand, assesse cited a judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Ambuja Export Ltd. [2014] 43 taxmann.com 244 (Gujarat) wherein it is held: 1. Section B9 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investments (Bogus