THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI VIGHNAHARTA REALITY PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) / Cos By :

Section 69A of the Act. 8.6. During the appellate proceedings before CIT(A), the assessee contended that it had obtained a loan of Rs.1,50,00,000/- on 19.08.2011 through “account payee cheque” from Green Stone Agro Product and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., which was duly recorded in its bank account and books of accounts. The said loan was repaid

SHIVGANGA PROPERTY HOLDERS PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) / Cos By :

Section 69A of the Act. 8.6. During the appellate proceedings before CIT(A), the assessee contended that it had obtained a loan of Rs.1,50,00,000/- on 19.08.2011 through “account payee cheque” from Green Stone Agro Product and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., which was duly recorded in its bank account and books of accounts. The said loan was repaid

ITO, WARD-4(1)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHIVGANGA PROPERTY HOLDERS PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) / Cos By :

Section 69A of the Act. 8.6. During the appellate proceedings before CIT(A), the assessee contended that it had obtained a loan of Rs.1,50,00,000/- on 19.08.2011 through “account payee cheque” from Green Stone Agro Product and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., which was duly recorded in its bank account and books of accounts. The said loan was repaid

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)

Section 69A which is not applicable to the present case wherein the cash withdrawals and deposits are clearly recorded in the cash book, profit and loss account and balance sheet of the assessee. Thus the Assessing Officer erred in making addition u/s. 69A and also taxed u/s. 115BBE of the Act. 4.1. In this connection Ld. Counsel relied upon following

SHRI VIGHNAHARTA REALTY PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 69A of the Act.\n8.6.\nDuring the appellate proceedings before CIT(A), the assessee\ncontended that it had obtained a loan of Rs.1,50,00,000/- on 19.08.2011\nthrough \"account payee cheque\" from Green Stone Agro Product and\nInfrastructure Pvt. Ltd., which was duly recorded in its bank account and\nbooks of accounts. The said loan was repaid

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(2)(1) AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAWAN VEJALPUR AHMEDABAD vs. RAMANBHAI JAGABHAI BHARWAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 69A of the Act, the assessee submitted that the AO acted merely on presumptions, without properly evaluating the replies and supporting documents filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee submitted that contrary to the AO’s assertion that the assessee failed to explain the source of funds, the assessee had furnished detailed evidence including

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SANKALP RECREATION PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

69A, despite the assessee failed explain the source thereof 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 9. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored

SANKALP RECREATION PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

69A, despite the assessee failed explain the source thereof 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 9. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR vs. MAHADEV SHIPBREAKERS PVT LTD., BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalthe Assistant Commissioner Mahadev Shipbreakers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, Office No. 213/216, 2Nd Floor, Circle-1, Samved Complex, Opp. Jail Bhavnagar Road, Bhavnagar-364001 [Pan :Aaecm 8398 J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Abhijit, Sr. Dr Respondent By: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Kushal Fofaria, Ar Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

TDS, supported by ledgers, bank statements, and confirmation from group concern M/s Shiv Corporation. Despite no incriminating evidence found, the Assessing Officer reopened the case, ignored submissions and video conference requests, and made an addition of Rs.80.94 lakhs under Section 69A

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)

Section 69A is deleted, and the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 9. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we have no hesitation in deleting the addition made by the Ld. CIT(A) and the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is devoid of merits and hereby dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue

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)

Section 69A is deleted, and the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 9. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we have no hesitation in deleting the addition made by the Ld. CIT(A) and the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is devoid of merits and hereby dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue

ARUNBHAI CHHAGANBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. 4. Fourth Ground of Appeal The CIT(A) has erred on facts in determining the tax liability without giving effect of the TDS

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

TULSI REALITY,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.134/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Tulsi Reality The Pr.Cit-1 बनाम/ G5 Anand Deep Complex Vadodara – 390 007 V/S. Gotri Road (Gujarat) Gotri, Vadodara – 390 021 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aafft 8908 B (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.03.2022 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vadodara-1 (Hereinafter Referred To As "Pcit") Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017- 18, Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 12.12.2019. Tulsi Reality Vs. The Pr.Cit-1 Asst. Year : 2017-18

TDS and not admissible expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act. 2.1. Subsequently, the PCIT invoked the powers under Section 263 of the Act, alleging that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The PCIT observed that the gross value of services provided as per the 360-degree module (CBEC Service Tax Data

SHANKARBHAI VIRABHAI PATEL,DAHOD vs. ITO WARD-1, DAHOD

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

Sections 115BBE\nand 69A regarding undisclosed income shall not be imposed on the\nAssessee.\n6.\nThe Assessee has not received a proper opportunity of being heard from the First\nAppellate Authority. The Documents including Statement of Facts and grounds of appeal were\nfiled with the CIT (Appeals) but the appeal was rejected. We plead you to accept our appeal\nand

SHANKARBHAI VIRABHAI PATEL,DAHOD vs. ITO WARD-1, DAHOD

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

Sections 115BBE\nand 69A regarding undisclosed income shall not be imposed on the\nAssessee.\n6.\nThe Assessee has not received a proper opportunity of being heard from the First\nAppellate Authority. The Documents including Statement of Facts and grounds of appeal were\nfiled with the CIT (Appeals) but the appeal was rejected. We plead you to accept our appeal\nand

SHRI RUSHABHDEV SWETAMBAR MURTIPUJAK JAIN SANGH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar&Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

69A of the Act. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income and directed the charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed under section 144 read with section 147, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The assessee raised

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

69A of the Act. Accordingly, all grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were dismissed. ITA Nos. 45to47/Ahd/2025 & 266&267/Ahd/2025 Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel-HUF vs. ITO ITO vs. Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel-HUF Asst. Years –2014-15 to 2016-17 - 14– 18. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal

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

69A of the Act. Accordingly, all grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were dismissed. ITA Nos. 45to47/Ahd/2025 & 266&267/Ahd/2025 Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel-HUF vs. ITO ITO vs. Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel-HUF Asst. Years –2014-15 to 2016-17 - 14– 18. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal