XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 30.11.2015 by the Income Tax Authority of TDS Range, Ahmedabad. During the course of survey, it was observed by the survey team that the assessee had defaulted in deposit of TDS amounting to the tune of Rs.26,33,867/- to the Government account. The DCIT

XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 30.11.2015 by the Income Tax Authority of TDS Range, Ahmedabad. During the course of survey, it was observed by the survey team that the assessee had defaulted in deposit of TDS amounting to the tune of Rs.26,33,867/- to the Government account. The DCIT

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

133A of the Act was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 30.08.2016. During the survey, the assessee admitted an undisclosed income of Rs.50,10,000/- and stated that this amount represented receipts related to business activities. The admitted income was subsequently included in the return of income and reflected in the financial statements of the assessee

N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

133A of the Act, and that the modus operandi adopted by NK Proteins and its clients was explained by him. The relevant para is para 7.6 of the order. The same is summarized as under:- I) NK Proteins is Member Broker on NSEL. II) NK Inds. being client of NK Proteins executes T+3 contract on the electronic platform

THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1)., AHMEDABAD vs. N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

133A of the Act, and that the modus operandi adopted by NK Proteins and its clients was explained by him. The relevant para is para 7.6 of the order. The same is summarized as under:- I) NK Proteins is Member Broker on NSEL. II) NK Inds. being client of NK Proteins executes T+3 contract on the electronic platform

THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1)., AHMEDABAD vs. N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

133A of the Act, and that the modus operandi adopted by NK Proteins and its clients was explained by him. The relevant para is para 7.6 of the order. The same is summarized as under:- I) NK Proteins is Member Broker on NSEL. II) NK Inds. being client of NK Proteins executes T+3 contract on the electronic platform

N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

133A of the Act, and that the modus operandi adopted by NK Proteins and its clients was explained by him. The relevant para is para 7.6 of the order. The same is summarized as under:- I) NK Proteins is Member Broker on NSEL. II) NK Inds. being client of NK Proteins executes T+3 contract on the electronic platform

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. N K PROTEINS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

133A of the Act. In the statement recorded, he explained in detail the trading activities carried out by N.K. Proteins Ltd. as well as its subsidiary concerns on the platform of National Spot Exchange Ltd. He stated that in the year 2008, M/s. N.K. Proteins Ltd. became the member of National Spot Exchange Ltd. The subsidiary concerns

N K PROTEINS PVT. LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

133A of the Act. In the statement recorded, he explained in detail the trading activities carried out by N.K. Proteins Ltd. as well as its subsidiary concerns on the platform of National Spot Exchange Ltd. He stated that in the year 2008, M/s. N.K. Proteins Ltd. became the member of National Spot Exchange Ltd. The subsidiary concerns

HUBTOWN BUS TERMINAL (AHMEDABAD) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE(TDS), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 201(1A). The Learned ADDL/JCIT (A)-2, Mumbai, has erred in confirming this order. 3. Without prejudice to above, the Learned ADDL/JCIT(A)-2, Mumbai, was not justified in confirming entire amount of interest levied by Learned Income Tax officer, TDS Circle (TDS); some amounts were not at all chargeable to interest and some amounts related to proceeding year

M/S. SINGHAL STEELS,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, TDS-2, VADODARA

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

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

u/s 133A(2A) was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 12.01.2016. During the course of survey, AO noticed that no TCS was collected on the MS Scrap Sale of Rs.1,48,11,187/- which was pertaining to the period April 13 to October 13. Therefore, TCS liability of Rs.1,48,112/- @1% was determined to be payable

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

133A of the Act, 1961 in the case of Hindva Builders and M/s. Hindva Safe Deposit Vault LLP was conducted on 17.11.2016. During the survey, it was found that the assessee was running two projects and involved in accepting cash for booking flats as well as receiving outstanding payment in its projects even after demonetization The assessee had accepted cash

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

133A of the Act, 1961 in the case of Hindva Builders and M/s. Hindva Safe Deposit Vault LLP was conducted on 17.11.2016. During the survey, it was found that the assessee was running two projects and involved in accepting cash for booking flats as well as receiving outstanding payment in its projects even after demonetization The assessee had accepted cash

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

133A of the Act, 1961 in the case of Hindva Builders and M/s. Hindva Safe Deposit Vault LLP was conducted on 17.11.2016. During the survey, it was found that the assessee was running two projects and involved in accepting cash for booking flats as well as receiving outstanding payment in its projects even after demonetization The assessee had accepted cash

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

133A of the Act, 1961 in the case of Hindva Builders and M/s. Hindva Safe Deposit Vault LLP was conducted on 17.11.2016. During the survey, it was found that the assessee was running two projects and involved in accepting cash for booking flats as well as receiving outstanding payment in its projects even after demonetization The assessee had accepted cash

CRYSTAL QUINONE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblecrystal Quinone Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Vs. Nr. Old Excise Chowky, Circle 1(1)(2), S.M. Road, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380015 [Pan : Aabcc 1413 H] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Respondent Represented By: Shri Abhijit, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 19.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 07.04.2026

133A of the Act was earned out in the case of M/s Reynolds Petro Chems Ltd. on 16/04/2015 and statement of one of the director(s) of the M/s Reynolds Petro Chems Ltd., Shri Sanjay Parasmal Jain was recorded u/s 131 of the Act, Shri Sanjay Parasmal Jain, deposed that M/s Reynolds Petro Chems Ltd. is not genuine and real

SAKARIYA METAL ROLLING MILLS,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(10), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddharatha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 34/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2015-2016 Sakariya Metal Rolling Mills, I.T.O., 257, Gujrat Vapraj Mahamandal, Vs. Ward-3(3)(10), Vasahat, S.P. Ring Road, Ahmedabad. Odhav, Ahmedabad-382415. Pan: Aadfs3443A

u/s 143(3} dated 29-12-2017 assessing the total income at Rs. 92,21,7007- as against income returned of Rs. 77,050/- and order passed by learned C.I.T.(A)-3, Partly allowing the appeal are bad in law and the same should be cancelled. (2) The learned A.O. erred in making an addition of Rs.20,08,550/- being

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

133A of the Act was conducted on 18-6-2015, as a consequence to which it was found that the assessee firm had shown payments to various sub- contractors (" 1,86,97,354/- for assessment year 2009-10). The statement of the sub-contractors were recorded, on the basis of which the AO concluded that the sub- contractors could