INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR vs. MADHAV COPPER LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three by the assessee, stand dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

purchases from entities flagged in GST investigations as bogus suppliers. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice under section 148 and framed the ITA No.254 to 256 and 274 to 276 /Ahd/2024 3 reassessment

MADHAV COPPER LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three\nby the assessee, stand dismissed

reassessment for AY 2018-19 to 2021-22 due to purchases from entities flagged as bogus suppliers. The Assessing Officer

MADHAV COPPER LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three\nby the assessee, stand dismissed

reassessment for AY 2018-19 based on information about alleged accommodation entry providers and bogus purchases. For AY 2020-21 and 2021-22, similar

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

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

bogus trade made by the respondent-assessee. Assessee is in the business of trading in iron and steel. For the Assessment Year 2003-2004, during the reassessment proceedings, it was found that the purchases

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

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

bogus trade made by the respondent-assessee. Assessee is in the business of trading in iron and steel. For the Assessment Year 2003-2004, during the reassessment proceedings, it was found that the purchases

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

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

bogus trade made by the respondent-assessee. Assessee is in the business of trading in iron and steel. For the Assessment Year 2003-2004, during the reassessment proceedings, it was found that the purchases

THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(5),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. SHUBH CONSTRUCTION,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bogus Purchases—Purchase price or profit element—Assessee engaged in business of trading in steel—In reassessment proceedings bogus purchases

BHAGAT MARKETING PVT LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, in light of the above observations and the judicial precedents on the subject, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings vide page 38a and 38b. Sales and purchases register page 45 to 50. Sales tax department form 217 audit report by state Govt. was also enclosed page 51 to 67. We have stated in the submission that No purchase sale transaction with Varia Alluminium Pvt. Ltd. had been made. In support of the same, the copy

THE JT.CIT, CIRCLE-6(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI NILESH RAMESHCHANDRA SHAH,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

reassessment was made determining the total income at Rs. 81,94,970/- after making I.T.A No. 267/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 3 Jt. CIT Vs. Shri Nilesh Rameshchandra Shah addition on account of rejection of books of accounts and addition on account of disallowance of bogus purchase

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

purchases amounting to Rs. 1,40,03,670/- made from M/s. Mahadev Trading Co. as bogus and as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act, since the assessee utterly failed to establish the genuineness of such transactions during the reassessment

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

purchases amounting to Rs.1,40,03,670/- made from M/s. Mahadev\nTrading Co. as bogus and as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of\nthe Act, since the assessee utterly failed to establish the genuineness of such\ntransactions during the reassessment

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1),, BARODA vs. M/S/ AMAR MINING COMPANY,, BARODA

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 1998-99

bogus purchases under section 143(3) read with section 254 of the Act. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee has failed to discharge its obligation during the reassessment

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

purchases may be disallowed, keeping into consideration the profit offered to tax by the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee had calculated NP at 16.09% of the Turnover. Accordingly, considering the observations made by the Ld. Assessing Officer in assessment order regarding the nature of sub-contracting expenses and looking into the totality of facts of the instant

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

purchases may be disallowed, keeping into consideration the profit offered to tax by the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee had calculated NP at 16.09% of the Turnover. Accordingly, considering the observations made by the Ld. Assessing Officer in assessment order regarding the nature of sub-contracting expenses and looking into the totality of facts of the instant

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

purchases may be disallowed, keeping into consideration the profit offered to tax by the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee had calculated NP at 16.09% of the Turnover. Accordingly, considering the observations made by the Ld. Assessing Officer in assessment order regarding the nature of sub-contracting expenses and looking into the totality of facts of the instant

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

purchases may be disallowed, keeping into consideration the profit offered to tax by the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee had calculated NP at 16.09% of the Turnover. Accordingly, considering the observations made by the Ld. Assessing Officer in assessment order regarding the nature of sub-contracting expenses and looking into the totality of facts of the instant

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

purchases may be disallowed, keeping into consideration the profit offered to tax by the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee had calculated NP at 16.09% of the Turnover. Accordingly, considering the observations made by the Ld. Assessing Officer in assessment order regarding the nature of sub-contracting expenses and looking into the totality of facts of the instant

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\nexpenses.\n67. ISSUE NO.4 REGARDING TREATMENT OF ALLEGED BOGUS\nSUB-CONTRACT EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 69A AND 69C OF\nTHE ACT AND CHARGING THE SAME AT THE RATE SPECIFIED\nIN TERMS OF SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT.\n68. The next issue being taken for consideration is the\ntreatment of the alleged bogus sub-contract expenses as deemed\nincome