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

money was routed through the accounts of the labour contractors and finally returned to the assessee itself and therefore, no payment was made to the sub contractors. The AO further found that all the sub contractors had shown 8% profits in their returns and the assessee's net profit ratio was also very low being 2.2%. The CIT(A) deleted

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

money was routed through the accounts of the labour contractors and finally returned to the assessee itself and therefore, no payment was made to the sub contractors. The AO further found that all the sub contractors had shown 8% profits in their returns and the assessee's net profit ratio was also very low being 2.2%. The CIT(A) deleted

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

money was routed through the accounts of the labour contractors and finally returned to the assessee itself and therefore, no payment was made to the sub contractors. The AO further found that all the sub contractors had shown 8% profits in their returns and the assessee's net profit ratio was also very low being 2.2%. The CIT(A) deleted

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

money was routed through the accounts of the labour contractors and finally returned to the assessee itself and therefore, no payment was made to the sub contractors. The AO further found that all the sub contractors had shown 8% profits in their returns and the assessee's net profit ratio was also very low being 2.2%. The CIT(A) deleted

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

money was routed through the accounts of the labour contractors and finally returned to the assessee itself and therefore, no payment was made to the sub contractors. The AO further found that all the sub contractors had shown 8% profits in their returns and the assessee's net profit ratio was also very low being 2.2%. The CIT(A) deleted

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

money given for purchase of the goods to the parties is returned\nthrough bogus sales. The difference of the purchases and sales of Rs 14,99,03,809/-\nhad been given as cash. It can be seen from the tables provided by Chirag Thakkar\nthat the purchase made from Overseas polymers Pvt Ltd, Anshul Agencies, Faith\nInnovation, Lakeland Chemical

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

money given for purchase of the goods to the parties is returned through bogus sales. The difference of the purchases and sales of Rs 14,99,03,809/- had been given as cash. It can be seen from the tables provided by Chirag Thakkar that the purchase made from Overseas polymers Pvt Ltd, Anshul Agencies, Faith Innovation, Lakeland Chemical

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

money given for purchase of the goods to the parties is returned through bogus sales. The difference of the purchases and sales of Rs 14,99,03,809/- had been given as cash. It can be seen from the tables provided by Chirag Thakkar that the purchase made from Overseas polymers Pvt Ltd, Anshul Agencies, Faith Innovation, Lakeland Chemical

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

money given for purchase of the goods to the parties is returned through bogus sales. The difference of the purchases and sales of Rs 14,99,03,809/- had been given as cash. It can be seen from the tables provided by Chirag Thakkar that the purchase made from Overseas polymers Pvt Ltd, Anshul Agencies, Faith Innovation, Lakeland Chemical

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

money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the Assessing Officer, then the department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law. But the said amount cannot be taken as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee. 4. In view of the above

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

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

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 unsecured loan. d) The Ld.ClTfA) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 52,20,129/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of cessation of liability u/s 41(1) of the act. e) The Ld.CIT[A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 24,92,862/- made

ACIT CC 2(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. AISHA DHIRAJ GOGIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result: 50. To summarize the final outcome:

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha["ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" एवं "ी नरे" साद िस!ा, लेखा सद" के सम#।]

unexplained note about a third-party property to all the properties purchased by the assessees, herein, and thereby making impugned additions based on assumptions and presumptions, is arbitrary and devoid of any legal sanctity. The assessee provided evidence that the property mentioned in the note (C-339) was sold by its owner at a rate far lower than

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)

unexplained money or investment under Sections 69A or 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and no income has escaped assessment. Further CIT(Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal. Therefore, Section 115BBE cannot be invoked, and its application in this case is both legally and factually incorrect. The application of Section 115BBE should be deleted

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 in nature. Therefore, apparently looking into the instant facts, the purchases were only essentially book entries in order to accommodate the bogus/cash sales to account for the unexplained money

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 in nature. Therefore, apparently looking into the instant facts, the purchases were only essentially book entries in order to accommodate the bogus/cash sales to account for the unexplained money

M/S. PUSHPAK BULLION PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Jurisdictional High Court & The Hon’Ble Gujarat High Court Dismissed The Writ Petition Filed By The Assessee Vide Judgment Dated 27-06-2016 In Sca No. 18512 Of 2015 & Upheld The Validity Of The Reassessment Notice.

purchasing the goods or otherwise, has not been proved, even though the transactions were made through banking channels. 7.4 After considering all the factual and legal aspects of the case, the addition of Rs.14,17,30,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act is sustained and the ground no.1.2 of the appeal is dismissed. …………………… Assessing Officer being unexplained credits

KARTIK CLOTHING & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

unexplained money under Section 69A and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a trader in clothes and does not sell in cash. The assessee had submitted list