DIPAK BALUBHAI PATEL - HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

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

deposit of Rs.10,75,000/-. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has rejected the explanation offered by the assessee. Since in the Return of Income, the assessee shown closing cash on hand as Nil but in the cash book shown the opening balance for A.Y. 2017-18 to the tune of Rs.10,09,933/-. The assessee before Appellate Commissioner

SHRI PRAVINKUMAR LALBHAI PATEL, INDL.,KALOL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4,, MEHSANA

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

deposited on this bank account (as per appellant's version) were of Rs.32,08,000/- meaning thereby, there were credits of Rs.23,03,280/- made through cheques. The appellant has disclosed, the contract receipts of Rs.6,15,249/- and his father Shri Lalbhai P. Patel has disclosed the contract receipts of Rs.l5,56,340/-totalling to Rs.21,51,589/-. Thus

SAMIR NAVINCHANDRA SHAH,PALDI, AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3)(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, VEJALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the asessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

deposit in the bank to cash sales made, finding that the assessee had not established the genuineness of the cash sales by furnishing any details of the customers to whom the sales were made and further, noting that no TDS

BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA, (L/H OF LATE BHAGWATSINH J CHAVDA),AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

TDS has been conducted at the time of actual payment for land levelling expenses and the assessee has not I.T.A Nos. 2281/Ahd/2016, 511/Ahd/2018,1075 &1076/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. 10 been able to give any justifiable reason as to why as against the total purchase consideration for the above land for a sum of Rs. 5.25 lakhs

LATE BHAGWATSINH JIBHUBHAI CHAVDA)L/H.BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

TDS has been conducted at the time of actual payment for land levelling expenses and the assessee has not I.T.A Nos. 2281/Ahd/2016, 511/Ahd/2018,1075 &1076/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. 10 been able to give any justifiable reason as to why as against the total purchase consideration for the above land for a sum of Rs. 5.25 lakhs

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI RANCHHODBHAI MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

TDS has been conducted at the time of actual payment for land levelling expenses and the assessee has not I.T.A Nos. 2281/Ahd/2016, 511/Ahd/2018,1075 &1076/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. 10 been able to give any justifiable reason as to why as against the total purchase consideration for the above land for a sum of Rs. 5.25 lakhs

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI R. MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

TDS has been conducted at the time of actual payment for land levelling expenses and the assessee has not I.T.A Nos. 2281/Ahd/2016, 511/Ahd/2018,1075 &1076/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. 10 been able to give any justifiable reason as to why as against the total purchase consideration for the above land for a sum of Rs. 5.25 lakhs

HARISHKUMAR KHUSHALRAY BHATT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(2) NOW WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Harishkumar Khushalray Bhatt Ito, Ward-3(3)(2) P/1, Chandragupta Apartment Vs. Ahmedabad. Nr. Gordhandas Patel Hospital Vastrapur Ahmedabad. Pan : Abspb 3786 F (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Pritesh L. Shah, Ar : Shri Uday Kishanrao Kakne, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

deposits by reflecting cash sales in the cash book, which appeared to be fictitious. A detailed analysis of these sales revealed that they were restricted to limited periods of the financial year and were not evenly spread. 17. The DR drew attention to the breakup of cash sales: Trading sales: Rs.4,83,025/- (02.04.2016 to 28.08.2016) i. Scrap sales: Rs.67

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RAMESHKUMAR MELAPCHAND SHAH, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

TDS. I.T.A Nos. 1618 & 1665/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 3 ITO Vs. Rameshkumar Melapchand Shah 3. Aggrieved Against the assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 3.39 crores made u/s. 68 of the Act after considering the submission and the cash deposits

RAMESHKUMAR MELAPCHAND SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

TDS. I.T.A Nos. 1618 & 1665/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 3 ITO Vs. Rameshkumar Melapchand Shah 3. Aggrieved Against the assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 3.39 crores made u/s. 68 of the Act after considering the submission and the cash deposits

ASHOKBHAI MULJIBHAI VANIYA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2012-13

cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee is upheld. Ashokbhai Muljibhai Vaniya vs. ITO Page 6 of 7 8. As regards addition of Rs.20,63,714/- in respect of credit entries in the bank account, the assessee has contested addition to the extent of Rs.20,00,000/- only. The contention of the assessee is that

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)

deposited I.T.A Nos. 270 & 287/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 8 Rekhaben INdravadan Chokshi vs. ITO in various bank accounts by the assessee was liable to be treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act and was thereby added to the total income of the assessee. 6. Further, in addition to the above, during the course of assessment proceedings

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)

deposited I.T.A Nos. 270 & 287/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 8 Rekhaben INdravadan Chokshi vs. ITO in various bank accounts by the assessee was liable to be treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act and was thereby added to the total income of the assessee. 6. Further, in addition to the above, during the course of assessment proceedings

SHRI VISHAL DILIP PALANY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(4),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Vishal Dilip Palani, Income Tax Officer, C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Advocate, Vs Ward 9(4), 903, Sapphire Complex, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Alopp 0931 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/10/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xv, Ahmedabad [“Cit(A) In Short]” Dated 04.02.2013. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 357 Days On The Part Of The Assessee In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Giving Details Of The Deteriorating Health Of His Father As Well As Financial Problems Faced During The Relevant Period Which Resulted In The Said Delay. Keeping In View The Same, We Are Satisfied That There Was A Sufficient Cause For The Delay Of 357 Days On The Part Of The Assessee In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Learned Departmental Representative Has Not Raised Any Objection In This Regard. We, Therefore, Shri Vishal Dilip Palani Vs. Ito Ay : 2009-10 2

cash deposit at Rs.55,33,807/- instead erred in giving partial relief of Rs,39,40,726/-. 3. In not giving total relief in reference to addition made towards unsecured loan at Rs.8,55,310/- instead of giving partial relief at Rs.5,14,310/-. 4. In not deleting the addition made in reference to investments in gold at Rs.31

ANKIT VIJAYKUMAR JAIN,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

cash deposits in bank account were fully explained and verified from audited accounts and also, from evidences of sales and ledger accounts as well as bank statements furnished to both the lower authorities. It be so held now and addition so sustained be deleted now. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE) further grievously erred

PRAMOD SHANKER PAWAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE I T OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

deposited a sum of Rs. 22,43,630/- in cash into the aforesaid bank account and had engaged in transactions amounting to Rs. 86,10,772/- at NSE and BSE. Additionally, the assessee earned salary income from Spice Jet Ltd., on which TDS

MILAN NARESHKUMAR VARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

deposit in the Bank of Baroda Bank Account is Rs. 4,680/-. Even though the same amount is already included in the amount of Rs. 1,03,22,664/- total credits in the bank accounts. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) erred in laws and on facts in confirming addition amounting

SIDIQBHAI USMANBHAI KALIWALA,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2,, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

cash deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- in her bank account but actually it is a cheque deposit made by the lender. Thus factually the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in confirming the addition of the advances of Rs. 10,00,000/-. We further notice that the assessee has made TDS