THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT MICROWAX LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both of the Appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

46A. In the remand-report, the TPO did not verify these data because he raised a serious objection against the admissibility of additional evidence itself. However, the Ld. CIT(A) admitted additional evidence. But these data and analysis have not at all been verified by Ld. TPO. Further the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) nowhere transpires that these data

SHRI VIRAL ASHISH PARIKH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD), CIRCLE-10,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3505/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Viral Ashish Parikh, The A.C.I.T,(Osd), Ashish Bunglow, Vs. Circle-10, Atira Road, Ahmedabad. Panjarapole Cross Road, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad.

46A of Income Tax Rule. However, from the preceding discussion, the assessee has not brought any cogent reason with the documentary evidence justifying that he was prevented by sufficient cause to file the additional evidences before the AO during the assessment proceedings. It was only contended by the assessee that the accountant who was looking after the income tax proceedings

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

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

section 143(3) of the Act. 16.9 On perusal of the ledgers of the laborers we note that the payment was made by the assessee periodically after the deduction of TDS. Thus, the assessee cannot be penalized if the laborers have raised the bills at the end of the accounting year. 16.10 We also note that the assessee has shown

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

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

section 143(3) of the Act. 16.9 On perusal of the ledgers of the laborers we note that the payment was made by the assessee periodically after the deduction of TDS. Thus, the assessee cannot be penalized if the laborers have raised the bills at the end of the accounting year. 16.10 We also note that the assessee has shown

M/S. SAKARLAL BALABHAI & COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Sakarlal Balabhai & Co. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 1001/6, 10Th Floor, Ankush Apartment, Vs Ward 4(1)(1), 10Th Khetwadi Lane, Grant Road, Ahmedabad Mumbai-400004 Pan : Aadcs 0862 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bimlendu Bhusan, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/09/2022 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)-8, Ahmedabad [“Cit(A) In Short]” Dated 20.09.2019 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under:- “1. Learned Cit(A) Has Neither Discussed Anything Related To The Disallowance Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer Nor Considered Any Grounds Related To That Raised By The Us For Which Actually Appeal Has Been Filed By The Appellant. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Claimed That The Appellant Is Involved In Only Investment Activity & Does Not Have Any Business Activity & We Do Not Agree With It.”

TDS. Hence, to that extent application of section 40(a)(ia) has no play. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) in so far as is oncerned is not justified. Hence, to that extent, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance and allow the claim of the assessee. Hence, ground no.3 is partly allowed only to the extent of reimbursement

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD vs. SUNPOINT TRADING LIMITED, MEMNAGAR, AHMEDABAD

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

TDS, and a contra-confirmation from the borrower. It was also noted that in the case of M/s. Shankar Growth Fund Pvt. Ltd., the said transaction had been examined and accepted in its assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s.147, and no adverse inference had been drawn.\n14. It is true that the CIT(A) had called

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,,WARD-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KANAK CASTOR PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedasst.Year : 2008-09

46A without appreciating the fact that during the course of assessment proceeding ample opportunities were given the Assessing Officer to produce the evidences and even during remand proceedings, the A.O. did not find the additional evidences submitted by the assessee as convincing and conclusive. 3. The appellant craves leave to amend alter any ground or add a new ground which

ITO WARD-4(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. VALLEY COMTRADE PVT LTD ( EARLIER KNOWN AS JHAWAR COMTRADE PVT. LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddharatha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2034/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 I.T.O, M/S. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., Ward-4(1)(4), Vs. (Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Ahmedabad. Pvt. Ltd.,) C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli Bmw Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aadcs3553N & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 68/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 M/S. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O, (Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Vs. Ward-1(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd.,) Surat. C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli Bmw Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aadcs3553N

TDS has been deducted which establishes the fact that there was business activity being carried out, hence identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction of these party also cannot be doubted. 6.1 During the assessment proceeding, it was highlighted that alleged entry providers are not connected either with investor companies or with their shareholders company in any manner. However this fact

DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEBABAD vs. TECHNO INDUSTRIES, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyaltechno Industries, Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Plot No. 613, Phase Iv, Income-Tax, Gidc, Vatva, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad-382 245 Ahmedabad [Pan : Aacft 1503 D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Respondent By: Shri Abhijit, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 22.01.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)” For Short), Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short), Relating To The Assessment Year 2017- 18. 2. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “(1) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs 1,03,00,000/- Made By Ao On Account Of Unsecured Loan Received From Various Lenders U/S. 68 Of It Act, Despite The Fact That The Assessee Had Not Corroborative Evidences Identity Genuineness/Creditworthiness Of The Lenders During Assessment Establish The Proceedings. (2) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Admitting The Additional Evidences During Appellate Proceedings, Without Giving The Opportunity To The Ao As Required By Rule 46A.. (3) The Ld. Cita) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,66,037/- Made By Ao On Account Of Disallowance Of Interest On Unsecured Loans Paid To Lenders, Despite The Fact That The Assessee Had Not Dcit Vs. Techno Industries Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 2–

Section 36(1)(va) is clarificatory in nature and hence it is applicable to A.Y. 2017-18.” 3. The assessee is a firm engaged in the business of manufacturing of hoists and cranes. It filed its return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 declaring total income of Rs.64,27,990/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 25.12.2019 determining

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(4),, VADODARA vs. SHRI PRADEEPSHANKAR B. JHA,, VADODARA

In the result, ground no. 4 of Revenue ‘s appeal is dismissed

46A of the IT Rule, 1962. (c) in not providing any opportunity to the AO before arriving at the figure of Rs.31,64,676/-, in spite of the same being arbitrary in nature 2. The appellant craves to add to, amend or alter the above grounds as may be deemed necessary. Relief claimed in appeal. The order

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2),, BARODA vs. SHRI PRADEEPSHANKAR B. JHA, BARODA

In the result, ground no. 4 of Revenue ‘s appeal is dismissed

46A of the IT Rule, 1962. (c) in not providing any opportunity to the AO before arriving at the figure of Rs.31,64,676/-, in spite of the same being arbitrary in nature 2. The appellant craves to add to, amend or alter the above grounds as may be deemed necessary. Relief claimed in appeal. The order

THE ITO, WARD-2(4),, BARODA vs. SHRI PRADEEPSHANKAR B. JHA, BARODA

In the result, ground no. 4 of Revenue ‘s appeal is dismissed

46A of the IT Rule, 1962. (c) in not providing any opportunity to the AO before arriving at the figure of Rs.31,64,676/-, in spite of the same being arbitrary in nature 2. The appellant craves to add to, amend or alter the above grounds as may be deemed necessary. Relief claimed in appeal. The order

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(2)(1) AHMEDABAD , AHMEDABAD vs. SONABEN ANILKUMAR VARIYA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 Ito, Ward-3(2)(1) Sonaben Anilkumar Variya Ahmedabad. Arhum Elegans Aec Cross Road City Naranpura Vistar So Ahmedabad. Pan : Amwpv 5380 Q (Applicant) (Responent) : None Assessee By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09 /10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

section 2(47) of the Act had taken place. The assessee also furnished a reconciliation between Form 26AS and the return of income, pointing out that transactions below Rs. 50 lakhs were not subjected to TDS and that this further explained the variation. It was emphasized that no TDS credit relating to Banakhat transactions had been claimed in the return

ITO, WARD - 4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD , AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE GAYATRI COTTEX ENGINEERS PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri T R Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS compliance before the AO. (ii) the CIT(A) also erroneously admitted additional evidence at the appellate stage, violating Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ITA No. 688/Ahd/2025 & C.O. No. 46/Ahd/2025 ITO vs. Shree Gayatri Cottex Engineers Pvt. Ltd. & Shree Gayatri Cottex Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Asst. Year –2021-22 - 3– (b) The Ld.CIT(A) has 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

TDS had been deducted. However, the assessee had not filed a return of income. In response to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed a return of income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 on 18th May 2019, declaring a total income of Rs. 3,92,710/-. Subsequently, a notice under Section

THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VADODARA vs. PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD., VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

section 68 and also deleted the\nrelated disallowance of Rs.92,603/- towards interest.\n96.\nThe Revenue is in appeal, contending that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in\ndeleting the addition on the basis of additional evidence without affording\nany opportunity to the Assessing Officer, thereby violating the provisions of\nRule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.\n97.\nThe learned

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

section 68 and also deleted the\nrelated disallowance of Rs.92,603/- towards interest.\n96.\nThe Revenue is in appeal, contending that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in\ndeleting the addition on the basis of additional evidence without affording\nany opportunity to the Assessing Officer, thereby violating the provisions of\nRule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.\n97.\nThe learned

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

section 68 and also deleted the\nrelated disallowance of Rs. 92,603/- towards interest.\n96. The Revenue is in appeal, contending that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in\ndeleting the addition on the basis of additional evidence without affording\nany opportunity to the Assessing Officer, thereby violating the provisions of\nRule 46A of the Income-tax Rules