THE DCIT, CIR-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs ADANI POWER MAHARASHTRA LTD.,, AHMEDABAD
ITA 242/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Nov 2022AY 2015-16
KAMLESH D. MANGLANI,,GODHRA vs THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, BARODA
ITA 39/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
THE DCIT, CIR-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs ADANI POWER MAHARASHTRA LTD.,, AHMEDABAD
ITA 283/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Nov 2022AY 2016-17
GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4, NOW CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD
ITA 1657/AHD/2015[2005-06]Status: Disposed30 Nov 2022AY 2005-06
SHRI POPATBHAI BHUDARBHAI PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs ITO, WARD-6(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD
ITA 493/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Nov 2022AY 2014-15
THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,, AHMEDABAD
ITA 1471/AHD/2015[2005-06]Status: Disposed30 Nov 2022AY 2005-06
GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs THE JT.CIT.,CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD
ITA 1747/AHD/2009[2005-06]Status: Disposed30 Nov 2022AY 2005-06
GMM PFAUDLER LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs THE DY. CIT., CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD
ITA 2213/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: Disposed29 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs GMM PFAULDER PVT. LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD
ITA 1370/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: Disposed29 Nov 2022AY 2010-11
THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs GMM P FOULDER PVT. LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD
ITA 2003/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed29 Nov 2022AY 2011-12
GMM PFAUDLER LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs THE DY. CIT., CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD
ITA 2212/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed29 Nov 2022AY 2011-12
GMM PFAUDLER LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD
ITA 951/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: Disposed29 Nov 2022AY 2010-11
SMT. MAYURI P. PATEL,VADODARA vs THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(2), VADODARA
ITA 92/AHD/2020[2012-13]Status: Disposed23 Nov 2022AY 2012-13Dismissed
The provided judgment text details the findings of the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's addition of Rs. 3,86,35,000 under Section 68, finding that the assessee failed to establish the creditworthiness and genuineness of the unsecured loan transactions from the three parties. The CIT(A) noted inconsistencies in explanations, lack of interest payments, and the lenders' inability to explain the source of funds given their meager incomes.
DR. KEYUR PARIKH,,AHMEDABAD vs THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD
ITA 1838/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed23 Nov 2022AY 2013-14
GENERAL MOTORS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PANCHMAHAL vs THE ACIT.,PANCHMAHAL CIRCLE,, GODHRA
ITA 1294/AHD/2015[2007-08]Status: Disposed23 Nov 2022AY 2007-08
THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(2),, AHMEDABAD vs M/S. SHREE AMI OFFICE OWNER'S ASSOCIATION,, AHMEDABAD
ITA 636/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: Disposed23 Nov 2022AY 2007-08
ARDOR CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD
ITA 2784/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: Disposed23 Nov 2022AY 2014-15
WEATHERFORD DRILLING & PRODUCTION SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,,VADODARA vs THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCEL-2(1)(2),, VADODARA
ITA 77/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: Disposed21 Nov 2022AY 2008-09
