IRM PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1590/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Irm Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Irm House, बनाम/ Of Income Tax, V/S. Off. C.G Raod, Circle 2(1)(1), Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380009. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaci3678M अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr-Dr

TDS credit. The addition appears to have been sustained summarily without independent verification or reasoning. 18. As regards the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- under section 69C

DCIT, AHMEDABAD vs. TRIPOLI MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.5/Ahd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Dcit Tripoli Management Pvt.Ltd. Ahmedabad बनाम/ 8-301, Safal Pegasis 100 Ft. Road V/S. Prahladnagar Ahmedabad- 380 015 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabct 0588 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ….. ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue As Against The Order Dated 19/10/2023 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 27/12/2018 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Dy.Cit Vs. Tripoli Management Pvt.Ltd. Asst. Year : 2016-17

TDS and, hence, no interest should be disallowed u/s 69C of the Act. 6.1. We have also reviewed the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360, wherein the Hon'ble High Court decided that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing necessary evidence, and the Department failed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

69C treating the same as unexplained expenditure. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who, after examining the material on record and submissions of the assessee, deleted both the additions. 7. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred an appeal before

H K ISPAT PVT. LTD.,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

69C treating the same as unexplained expenditure. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who, after examining the material on record and submissions of the assessee, deleted both the additions. 7. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred an appeal before

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

69C treating the same as unexplained expenditure. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who, after examining the material on record and submissions of the assessee, deleted both the additions. 7. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred an appeal before

ASCENDUM SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms.Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2017-18 Ascendum Solutions India Pvt Ltd. The Pr.Cit, A/7, Ground Floor Vs Aayakar Bhwan Safal Profitaire, Off. 100 Ft. Ring Road (Vejalpur) Opp: Prahaladnagar Garden Ahmedabad-1. Ahmedabad 380 015 Pan : Aagca 8236 M (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Vartik Chokshi & Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, Ar : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/01/2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 02/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R

TDS was deducted contains figures from various heads like audit fees, connectivity charges etc. The assessee has submitted break up of various expenses so as to substantiate the expenditure of Rs.84,58,448/-” 7. At para 5 to 5.2 of his order, the ld.Pr.CIT reproduced the explanation of the assessee, but without considering the same, and without deliberating

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-11,, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI UMANG HIRALAL THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member)

section 69C is not warranted. There is no need to interfere with the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue. Hence, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 8. As regards the assessee’s appeal, the ld. Authorized Representative submitted that merely because return of income is not filed within the time limit prescribed u/s. 139(1) that

SHRI UMANG H. THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,WARD-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member)

section 69C is not warranted. There is no need to interfere with the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue. Hence, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 8. As regards the assessee’s appeal, the ld. Authorized Representative submitted that merely because return of income is not filed within the time limit prescribed u/s. 139(1) that

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

TDS and also were made by account payee cheques and therefore, there was no reason to presume that the payments withdrawn by the sub contractors from their accounts have returned to the assessee. The ITAT held that in the absence of any specific material available against the assessee on record, there was no case for interference. Thus this I.T.A

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

TDS and also were made by account payee cheques and therefore, there was no reason to presume that the payments withdrawn by the sub contractors from their accounts have returned to the assessee. The ITAT held that in the absence of any specific material available against the assessee on record, there was no case for interference. Thus this I.T.A

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

TDS and also were made by account payee cheques and therefore, there was no reason to presume that the payments withdrawn by the sub contractors from their accounts have returned to the assessee. The ITAT held that in the absence of any specific material available against the assessee on record, there was no case for interference. Thus this I.T.A

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

TDS and also were made by account payee cheques and therefore, there was no reason to presume that the payments withdrawn by the sub contractors from their accounts have returned to the assessee. The ITAT held that in the absence of any specific material available against the assessee on record, there was no case for interference. Thus this I.T.A

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

TDS and also were made by account payee cheques and therefore, there was no reason to presume that the payments withdrawn by the sub contractors from their accounts have returned to the assessee. The ITAT held that in the absence of any specific material available against the assessee on record, there was no case for interference. Thus this I.T.A

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)

section 69A without verifying bank statements of the appellant. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) erred in laws and on facts in confirming addition amounting to Rs. 39,98,720/- U/s. 69A on ground of cash deposited in Dena Bank Account. Actual cash deposit in the Dena Bank Account is Rs.36,77,930/-. Even though the same