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

undisclosed income of Rs 45,00,000/- and paid tax in accordance with scheme and received certificate there for from Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, hence the same disclosed income cannot be included as income is assessment as per Section 199-1 of PMKGY. However Ld. A.Ο. has allowed credit of amount of disclosed income in PMKGY from total

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

undisclosed income of Rs 45,00,000/- and paid tax in accordance with scheme and received certificate there for from Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, hence the same disclosed income cannot be included as income is assessment as per Section 199-1 of PMKGY. However Ld. A.Ο. has allowed credit of amount of disclosed income in PMKGY from total

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

undisclosed income of Rs 45,00,000/- and paid tax in accordance with scheme and received certificate there for from Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, hence the same disclosed income cannot be included as income is assessment as per Section 199-1 of PMKGY. However Ld. A.Ο. has allowed credit of amount of disclosed income in PMKGY from total

LYSA TRADING LLP,AHMEDABAD,GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2022-23 Lysa Trading Llp Ito, Ward-1(2)(3) Corporate House-2, Shilp Vs Ahmedabad. Corporate Park Rajpath Rangoli Road Bodakdev Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaifl 3030 D (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Ms.Amrin Pathan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

undisclosed income of the assessee. 5. The ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO reiterating his finding that evidence in the form of invoice raised by the “SEPL” on “CAM” charges claimed by the assessee of Rs.34,29,816/- was not presented by the assessee. His findings in this regard are contained at page no.2 of his order

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 :

undisclosed income. The assessee, on the other hand, argued that these documents were "dumb documents" with no clear evidentiary value. The contention was that the documents neither bore the assessee’s name nor any direct authentication linking them to the assessee. The assessee also pointed out that there were no corroborative statements or evidence to substantiate the AO’s inference

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 :

undisclosed income. The assessee, on the other hand, argued that these documents were "dumb documents" with no clear evidentiary value. The contention was that the documents neither bore the assessee’s name nor any direct authentication linking them to the assessee. The assessee also pointed out that there were no corroborative statements or evidence to substantiate the AO’s inference

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 :

undisclosed income. The assessee, on the other hand, argued that these documents were "dumb documents" with no clear evidentiary value. The contention was that the documents neither bore the assessee’s name nor any direct authentication linking them to the assessee. The assessee also pointed out that there were no corroborative statements or evidence to substantiate the AO’s inference

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

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. The AO completed the assessment by passing the order u/s 143(3) of the Act by adding Rs.8,661/- being interest and penalty

AMAN MAZHERALI SAIYED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

TDS on salary while finalizing assessment for AY 2011 2012 despite Ld. AO made addition to income of Rs.6,66,348/- on account of salary income order passed was bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. A.Y. 2011-12 Page 2 of 3 3. That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

undisclosed income. The assessee, on the other hand, argued that\nthese documents were \"dumb documents\" with no clear evidentiary value.\nThe contention was that the documents neither bore the assessee's name nor\nany direct authentication linking them to the assessee. The assessee also\npointed out that there were no corroborative statements or evidence to\nsubstantiate the AO's inference

BHAVESH K SHAH,AKOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2)(1), ALKAPURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS of ₹1,35,000/-) was paid in money terms, and the balance consideration of ₹30,14,000/- was discharged by way of allocation of one of the newly constructed flats to the seller of the land. The Assessing Officer treated the value of ₹30,14,000/- as undisclosed income

BRIGHTECH VALVES & CONTROLS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.Ta. No.52/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Brightech Valves & Controls Vs. Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of Plot No.345, Gidc Kathwada. Income Tax, Kathwada, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-382430. Ahmedabad.

TDS as per 26AS and as disclosed in the Return of Income. The Assessing Officer added the income of undisclosed

COSMOS ENGITECH PRIVATE LIMITED,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Tr Senthil Kumarcosmos Engitech Private Ltd., The Assistant Vs. Plot No.85/2, Cosmos House, Commissioner Padra Road, Atladara, Of Income Tax, Vadodara-380015. Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara. [Pan :Aaacc7647 J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Tej Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

TDS as per 26AS and as disclosed in the Return of Income. The Assessing Officer added the income of undisclosed

DISHA RESOURCES LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ARIHANT AVENUES AND CREDIT LIMITED.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

TDS as per 26AS and as disclosed in the Return of Income. The Assessing Officer added the income of undisclosed

DISHA RESOURCES LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ARIHANT AVENUES AND CREDIT LIMITED.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

TDS as per 26AS and as disclosed in the Return of Income. The Assessing Officer added the income of undisclosed

NILESH AMRITLAL PARIKH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1)(PREVIOUSLY ITO, WARD-1(2)(4), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS Certificate i.e. Form 26AS. The judgment held that: Since the income has been added, the AO is legally required to prove that the said income accrued to the appellant or was received by it. The burden is on the AO to prove the alleged fact. On the contrary in the assessment proceedings, the AO demanded the appellant to prove

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. GOYAL AND CO. (CONST.) PRIVATE LIMITED., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1836/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Asst.Year 2016-17 The Dcit Goyal & Co. (Const.) Private बनाम/ Central Circle-1(2), Limited V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 009 10Th Floor Commerce House Iv Beside Reliance Petrol Pump 100Ft. Road, Satellite Ahmedabad – 380 015 अपीलाथ'/ (Appellant) !( यथ'/ (Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.42/Ahd/2024 - िनधा"रण वष" /Ay 2016-17 (In Ita No.1836/Ahd/2024 – Ay 2016-17) V/S. Goyal & Co. (Const.) Private The Dcit Limited Central Circle-1(2), 10Th Floor,Commerce House Iv Ahmedabad – 380 009 Beside Reliance Petrol Pump 100Ft. Road, Satellite Ahmedabad – 380 015 Pan: Aabcg 5459 R (Cross Objector) .. (Respondent)

undisclosed income declared under IDS, 2016, while upholding the addition towards payment of on-money for purchase of land, not appreciating that no such explanation had been given by the assessee before the A.O. and such additional evidence is unverified and also not in accordance with Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules". 2) The Revenue craves leave to add/alter/armed and/or

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

undisclosed income of the assessee. 9.1 Some of the transactions appearing in such loose sheet were found recorded in the books of accounts amounting to ₹ 5,02,000/- which was deleted by the learned CIT(A). Likewise. The learned CIT(A) was also pleased to delete the addition of the opening balance amounting to ₹ 1,06,864/-. In other words