PARVINDAR INDAR SINGH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

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

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

assessment was reopened by recording the following reasons: “….1. Receipt from the professional fee was declared in the ITR after deducting TDS

PARVINDAR INDAR SINGH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

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

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

assessment was reopened by recording the following reasons: “….1. Receipt from the professional fee was declared in the ITR after deducting TDS

INCOME TAX WARD 4(2)(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL HUF, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS. We find that the Assessing Officer rejected the explanation offered by the assessee solely on the ground that in some cases, the lenders had filed returns with low income or had not filed returns at all. However, the identity of the lenders was not in dispute and the transactions were through banking channels. There is no adverse material brought

INCOME TAX WARD 4(2)(3) AHMEDABAD , AHMEDABAD vs. NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL HUF, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS. We find that the Assessing Officer rejected the explanation offered by the assessee solely on the ground that in some cases, the lenders had filed returns with low income or had not filed returns at all. However, the identity of the lenders was not in dispute and the transactions were through banking channels. There is no adverse material brought

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS. We find that the Assessing Officer rejected the explanation offered by the assessee solely on the ground that in some cases, the lenders had filed returns with low income or had not filed returns at all. However, the identity of the lenders was not in dispute and the transactions were through banking channels. There is no adverse material brought

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS. We find that the Assessing Officer rejected the explanation offered by the assessee solely on the ground that in some cases, the lenders had filed returns with low income or had not filed returns at all. However, the identity of the lenders was not in dispute and the transactions were through banking channels. There is no adverse material brought

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS. We find that the Assessing Officer rejected the explanation offered by the assessee solely on the ground that in some cases, the lenders had filed returns with low income or had not filed returns at all. However, the identity of the lenders was not in dispute and the transactions were through banking channels. There is no adverse material brought

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

reopening under section 147 of the Act on the ground that the judgement cited by the assessee were on the peculiar facts of that case and in the case of the assessee, it was a prima facie belief of the AO that considering the statements of the sub- contractors of the assessee recorded during the course of survey

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

reopening under section 147 of the Act on the ground that the judgement cited by the assessee were on the peculiar facts of that case and in the case of the assessee, it was a prima facie belief of the AO that considering the statements of the sub- contractors of the assessee recorded during the course of survey

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

reopening under section 147 of the Act on the ground that the judgement cited by the assessee were on the peculiar facts of that case and in the case of the assessee, it was a prima facie belief of the AO that considering the statements of the sub- contractors of the assessee recorded during the course of survey

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

reopening under section 147 of the Act on the ground that the judgement cited by the assessee were on the peculiar facts of that case and in the case of the assessee, it was a prima facie belief of the AO that considering the statements of the sub- contractors of the assessee recorded during the course of survey

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

reopening under section 147 of the Act on the ground that the judgement cited by the assessee were on the peculiar facts of that case and in the case of the assessee, it was a prima facie belief of the AO that considering the statements of the sub- contractors of the assessee recorded during the course of survey

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S.DHARMEN MARBLE & STONE, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 794/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.171/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Dharmen Marble & Stone, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aabfd5172B

TDS of Rs. 16,897/- credited from city union bank and Prism Cement, thus the corresponding income of Rs. 1,68,970 also remain unexplained and escaped assessment. Therefore, the AO initiated the proceedings under section 147 of the Act by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act. With C.O.No.171/Ahd/2019 Asstt. Year 2010-11 5 4.3 However

SHRI RAJNIBHAI SHIVLAL MODI,,HIMATNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, S.K.WARD-3,, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reopening the assessment. During the course of original assessment proceedings in response to notice u/s. 142(1) dated 7th May, 2011 issued by the Assessing Officer, the assessee has responded vide para 4 and 5 of his reply on the issue showing R.A. Bill of Rs. 57,57,910/- in total turnover. The relevant part of the reply

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reopened. Finally ignoring all the submissions of the ITA Nos.1450&1451 and 1562&1563/Ahd/2024 (By Revenue) DCIT vs. Hindva Builders Asst. Years : 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2017-18 respectively appellant and judicial pronouncements, the AO had made addition of the entire (gross) on money received by the appellant amounting to Rs. 10,26,63,022/ as unexplained money

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reopened. Finally ignoring all the submissions of the ITA Nos.1450&1451 and 1562&1563/Ahd/2024 (By Revenue) DCIT vs. Hindva Builders Asst. Years : 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2017-18 respectively appellant and judicial pronouncements, the AO had made addition of the entire (gross) on money received by the appellant amounting to Rs. 10,26,63,022/ as unexplained money

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reopened. Finally ignoring all the submissions of the ITA Nos.1450&1451 and 1562&1563/Ahd/2024 (By Revenue) DCIT vs. Hindva Builders Asst. Years : 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2017-18 respectively appellant and judicial pronouncements, the AO had made addition of the entire (gross) on money received by the appellant amounting to Rs. 10,26,63,022/ as unexplained money

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reopened. Finally ignoring all the submissions of the ITA Nos.1450&1451 and 1562&1563/Ahd/2024 (By Revenue) DCIT vs. Hindva Builders Asst. Years : 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2017-18 respectively appellant and judicial pronouncements, the AO had made addition of the entire (gross) on money received by the appellant amounting to Rs. 10,26,63,022/ as unexplained money