HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

bogus purchases had been set aside in entirety by the Hon’ble ITAT for fresh adjudication and therefore the earlier relief granted by the CIT(A) stood merged with the order of the Tribunal. It was observed that the Assessing Officer had rightly re-examined the entire issue in accordance with the directions of the ITAT and hence the contention

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

bogus purchases had been set aside in entirety by the Hon’ble ITAT for fresh adjudication and therefore the earlier relief granted by the CIT(A) stood merged with the order of the Tribunal. It was observed that the Assessing Officer had rightly re-examined the entire issue in accordance with the directions of the ITAT and hence the contention

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

bogus purchases had been set aside in entirety by the Hon’ble ITAT for fresh adjudication and therefore the earlier relief granted by the CIT(A) stood merged with the order of the Tribunal. It was observed that the Assessing Officer had rightly re-examined the entire issue in accordance with the directions of the ITAT and hence the contention

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

bogus purchases had been set aside in entirety by the Hon’ble ITAT for fresh adjudication and therefore the earlier relief granted by the CIT(A) stood merged with the order of the Tribunal. It was observed that the Assessing Officer had rightly re-examined the entire issue in accordance with the directions of the ITAT and hence the contention

M/S. GSP CROP SCIENCE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.62,08,914/-, and we accordingly direct deletion of the same. Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed. 19. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.891/Ahd/2018 is partly allowed. 20. Now we take up the assessee’s appeal in ITA No.892/Ahd/2018 for Asst.Year 2014-15. 21. The issue raised

M/S. GSP CROP SCIENCE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.62,08,914/-, and we accordingly direct deletion of the same. Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed. 19. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.891/Ahd/2018 is partly allowed. 20. Now we take up the assessee’s appeal in ITA No.892/Ahd/2018 for Asst.Year 2014-15. 21. The issue raised

SMT. REKHA ANIL DUGGAD,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumar

delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The original assessment under Section 143(3) was passed on 26.12.2011 treating the purchase of brass as bogus purchase and an addition of Rs. 38,00,000/- was being made and determined the taxable income as Rs. 19,61,059/-. Following this assessment order, penalty proceeding was initiated against the husband

DILIPKUMAR PASHABHAI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/Sf 211 Pushp Business Campus Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr. Vastral Cross Road Ahmedabad Sp Ring Road Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 418 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atrpp 9632 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

purchases made by the appellant as bogus u/s 69C since the same was duly supported with bills and made payments through account payee cheques. 4. NFAC failed to consider that A.O. had reopened assessment based on the CBI inquiry, which is not a judicial proceeding, hence it is unrelatable in the Income Tax Assessment Proceeding, thereby quashing the assessment proceeding

DILIPKUMAR PASHABHAI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/Sf 211 Pushp Business Campus Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr. Vastral Cross Road Ahmedabad Sp Ring Road Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 418 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atrpp 9632 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

purchases made by the appellant as bogus u/s 69C since the same was duly supported with bills and made payments through account payee cheques. 4. NFAC failed to consider that A.O. had reopened assessment based on the CBI inquiry, which is not a judicial proceeding, hence it is unrelatable in the Income Tax Assessment Proceeding, thereby quashing the assessment proceeding

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

KAUSHAL PRAVINKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2018-19

bogus purchases and disallowed the same as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69 of the Act, thereby taxing the same u/s. 115BBE Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex- parte without discussing anything on merit. 5. At the time of hearing despite giving notices, none appeared

ALANG STEEL RECYCLING PRIVATE LIMITED,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalalang Steel Recycling The Dy. Cit-1, Private Limited Vs. Circle-1, Ground Floor, Bhavnagar – 364 001 Shop No.G-1 Sukun-1, Bhilwara Circle Bhavnagar – 364 001 [ Pan: Aamca 4837 A ] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue Represented By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr 08.12.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026

bogus purchases. 4. Both, AO & CIT(A), have erred in passing the impugned orders without properly appreciating facts of the case, submissions of the assessee and documentary evidences available on record in the correct perspective. Such an act is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. MOHAMMEDARIF IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

condone the delay. 6. So far as the maintainability of the proceeding initiated under Section 147 of the Act is concerned, the crux of the submission made by the Ld. A.R. is this that the same is based on change of opinion. No new and/or any tangible material was available with the Ld. AO to come to a conclusion that

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. MOHAMMEDARIF IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

condone the delay. 6. So far as the maintainability of the proceeding initiated under Section 147 of the Act is concerned, the crux of the submission made by the Ld. A.R. is this that the same is based on change of opinion. No new and/or any tangible material was available with the Ld. AO to come to a conclusion that

SHRI DEVENDRA THAKERSHIBHAI THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.587/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2913-14 Devendra Thakershibhai The Ito बनाम/ Thakkar Ward-3(2)(1) V/S. Prop. Of Prism Agri Ahmedabad – 380 015 Tradelink Ravjipura Nava Bazar, Bavla Tal: Dascroi Ahmedabad – 380 057 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aospt 8109 B अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

delay is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. On Merits 7. During the course of hearing before us the Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee argued on the basis of key points relating to – - Verification of Books of Accounts in the Remand Report by the AO. - Summons to Sundry Creditors/Debtors by the AO. - Contradiction

ALPESHSINH K JADEJA,BANASKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-2, PALANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated in above terms

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year : 2011-12 Alpeshsinh K. Jadeja Ito, Ward-2 Indraprasth Nagar Vs Palanpur. Nr. Langar Bidis Palanpur Highway Deesa, Banaskantha 385 535 Pan : Adopj 0804

delay is condoned, and the appeal of the assessee is taken up for adjudication on merit. 4. The ground no.1 and 2 raised by the assessee are legal grounds challenging validity of the assessment framed under section 147 of the Act. The said grounds are as under: “1. The Ld. A.O. has erred in assuming jurisdiction

IRONBUILD SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,,ANAND vs. THE DY. CIT.,, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as un- admitted being time barred

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10 Ironbuild Systems P.Ltd. Dcit, Anand. I-58/59, Gidc Vs V.U. Nagar – 388 121 Ta. & Dist. Anand. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.T. Thakar, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 6.3.2014 Passed By Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Baroda [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] In Appeal No.Cb/Iv-A-355/2011-12 Relating To The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Registry Has Pointed Out A Delay Of 712 Days In Filing Appeal Before The Tribunal & Therefore, Appeal Is Time Barred By Limitation. Shri Sarath Rajendraprasad, Director Of Assessee- Company Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay By Stating Reasons For Impugned Delay As Follows:

condone such delay. 4 5. The assessee has modified grounds before the Tribunal as follows: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming addition of Rs.33,61,451/- made by assessing officer on account of unverified purchases by invoking provision of sec 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961” 6. Further, looking

VICKY RAJESH JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

delay is condoned. Now, coming to the facts of the case, in this case, the original return of income was finalized on 30-07-2021 through electric mode declaring income of Rs. 41,27,580/-. Return was duly processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The case was reopened on 25-03-2015 u/s. 147 of the Act which