THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI KAILASH RAMAVATAR GOENKA, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 69C and disallowed the expenses under Section 40A(3) due to cash payments. However, once the receipts have been

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

disallowance be restricted to 12.5% of the bogus purchase\nexpenses.\n67. ISSUE NO.4 REGARDING TREATMENT OF ALLEGED BOGUS\nSUB-CONTRACT EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 69A AND 69C

MITEN PATEL- HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15 Miten Patel Huf, Income Tax Officer, C/O. Shri Vinit Moondra, Ca Vs Ward 3(2)(3), 201, Sarap, Opp. Navjivan Press, Ahmedabad Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-14 Pan : Aanhm 4435 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/09/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-:

disallowance of Rs.2,08,17,445/- being 30% of the direct expenses claimed by the assessee and made an addition to that extent under Section 69C

SANKALP RECREATION PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

disallowing the unaccounted expenditures under Section 69C of the Act. 3.1. `The assessee contended that only the net profit from

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SANKALP RECREATION PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

disallowing the unaccounted expenditures under Section 69C of the Act. 3.1. `The assessee contended that only the net profit from

SHAILESHKUMAR DAHYABHAI PATEL,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(2) (NOW DCIT CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, GUJARAT, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, Ground Number 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed interest expenditure of ₹8,98,956/- claimed on such unexplained loans and added the same as unexplained expenditure under section 69C

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR vs. LEELA GREENSHIP RECYCLING PRIVATE LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of above directions

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 2111/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Leela Greenship Recycling Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Office No.303, 3Rd Floor, बनाम/ Commissioner V/S. B Wing, Leela Efcee, Of Income Tax, Near Aksharwadi Temple, Circle-1, Waghawadi Road, Bhavnagar. Bhavnagar-364002. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aagcg8956L

section 69C of the Act treating the purchases from M/s. Mahadev Trading Co. as bogus, resulting in the assessed income being enhanced to Rs. 1,55,90,420/-. The CIT(A), while partly allowing the appeal of the assessee, restricted the disallowance

JITENDRA RAJKUMAR AGARWAL (PROPRIETOR OF SHRI SHIV SHAKTI ENTERPRISE),AHMEDABAD vs. ASESSMENT UNIT, IT DEPARTMENT JURIS. AO- THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

69C and taxed under section 115BBE. The assessment was completed under section 147 read with section 144B determining total income at Rs. 2,00,84,240/- 4. The assessee challenged the reassessment and the entire disallowance

LEELA GREENSHIP RECYCLING PVT. LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes in terms of above directions

section 69C of the Act treating the purchases from M/s.\nMahadev Trading Co. as bogus, resulting in the assessed income being\nenhanced to Rs.1,55,90,420/-. The CIT(A), while partly allowing the appeal\nof the assessee, restricted the disallowance

THE ITO, WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. BHAILALBHAI A.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

Section 69 and 69C of the IT. Act as has been done by the Assessing Officer in his order. 3) The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-9,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. BHAILALBHAI A.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

Section 69 and 69C of the IT. Act as has been done by the Assessing Officer in his order. 3) The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

section 147 of the Act. 19. At the outset, we note that the issue has not been pressed before us by the learned AR for the assessee. Therefore the same is hereby dismissed being not pressed. 20. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of opening stock

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

section 147 of the Act. 19. At the outset, we note that the issue has not been pressed before us by the learned AR for the assessee. Therefore the same is hereby dismissed being not pressed. 20. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of opening stock

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-12,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

section 147 of the Act. 19. At the outset, we note that the issue has not been pressed before us by the learned AR for the assessee. Therefore the same is hereby dismissed being not pressed. 20. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of opening stock

THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

section 147 of the Act. 19. At the outset, we note that the issue has not been pressed before us by the learned AR for the assessee. Therefore the same is hereby dismissed being not pressed. 20. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of opening stock

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

section 147 of the Act. 19. At the outset, we note that the issue has not been pressed before us by the learned AR for the assessee. Therefore the same is hereby dismissed being not pressed. 20. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of opening stock

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,VII,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

section 147 of the Act. 19. At the outset, we note that the issue has not been pressed before us by the learned AR for the assessee. Therefore the same is hereby dismissed being not pressed. 20. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of opening stock

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

section 147 of the Act. 19. At the outset, we note that the issue has not been pressed before us by the learned AR for the assessee. Therefore the same is hereby dismissed being not pressed. 20. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of opening stock