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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Assessee before the learned CIT (A) has furnished the copies of the income tax return filed by MD but the learned CIT (A) without considering the same insisted for financial statements of MD. If the assessee has not furnished the details of MD, then the CIT (A) could have easily collected

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Assessee before the learned CIT (A) has furnished the copies of the income tax return filed by MD but the learned CIT (A) without considering the same insisted for financial statements of MD. If the assessee has not furnished the details of MD, then the CIT (A) could have easily collected

AKAR LAMINATORS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1) (ASTT. ORDER PASSSING AUTHORITY) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1) (CURRENT JURISDICTION), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case, a public company, is engaged in the business of manufacturing, trading, and job work of flexible packing materials. The assessee for the year under consideration was selected under scrutiny assessment under CASS and the assessment under section

AKAR LAMINATORS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1) (ASSTT. ORDER PASSING AUTHORITY) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1) (CURRENT JURISDICTION), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case, a public company, is engaged in the business of manufacturing, trading, and job work of flexible packing materials. The assessee for the year under consideration was selected under scrutiny assessment under CASS and the assessment under section

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT-A. 6. The assessee besides reiterating its submission made during assessment proceeding further filed the assessment order of the investor companies framed under section

ARVINDKUMAR AMULKH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (3), AHMEADABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act, of Rs. 2,37,48,985/-, Rs. 1,09,52,204/- and Rs. 36,80,676/- respectively for the A.Y. 2013-14 and A.Y. 2014-15. The AO, during the assessment proceedings, observed cash deposits in the bank accounts of the parties who advanced unsecured loan to the assessee and concluded that

M/S. PRAMUKH COTPRESS INDIA PVT. LTD.,,SABARKANTHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, S.K.WARD- 2,, HIMATNAGAR

unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act in respect of share capital without taking into consideration the continued non-compliance by the assessee during the assessment proceedings and considering the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has not given any opportunity to the AO to verify the rejoinder submitted by the assessee on remand report submitted

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. CRYSTAL CERAMIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act merely based on Third-Party statement in absence of substantial corroborative evidences in support of the alleged addition. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. 5. Ld. Counsel appearing

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. CRYSTAL CERAMIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act merely based on Third-Party statement in absence of substantial corroborative evidences in support of the alleged addition. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. 5. Ld. Counsel appearing

CRYSTAL CERAMICS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act merely based on Third-Party statement in absence of substantial corroborative evidences in support of the alleged addition. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. 5. Ld. Counsel appearing

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE SARAS SPICES & FOOD PRIVATE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 478/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S. Shree Saras Spices & Foods Pvt. I.T.O., Ltd., Vs. Ward-4(1)(3), A/3, 4Th Floor, Ahmedabad. Casela Tower,, Opp. Iscon Mandir, S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad-380015

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act, and added to the total income of the assessee by holding that own unaccounted money has been received by the assesse in the guise of loan. ITA nos.478& 620/AHD/2017 Asstt. Year 2012-13 4 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A) who partly allowed the appeal

SHREE SARAS SPICES & FOODS P. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 478/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S. Shree Saras Spices & Foods Pvt. I.T.O., Ltd., Vs. Ward-4(1)(3), A/3, 4Th Floor, Ahmedabad. Casela Tower,, Opp. Iscon Mandir, S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad-380015

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act, and added to the total income of the assessee by holding that own unaccounted money has been received by the assesse in the guise of loan. ITA nos.478& 620/AHD/2017 Asstt. Year 2012-13 4 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A) who partly allowed the appeal

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

credit card expenses and cash receipts, is distinguishable. In those cases, there was no evidence to explain the expenses, whereas in the present case, the CIT(A) has rightly applied an estimated NPR based on business realities. While the DR has argued that there were violations of Section 40A(3) of the Act due to cash payments and non-deduction

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

credit card expenses and cash receipts, is distinguishable. In those cases, there was no evidence to explain the expenses, whereas in the present case, the CIT(A) has rightly applied an estimated NPR based on business realities. While the DR has argued that there were violations of Section 40A(3) of the Act due to cash payments and non-deduction

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AASHNA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 417/Ahd/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2018-2019 Income Tax Officer, M/S Aashna Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ward-1(1)(1), Vs. 301, Satkar Complex, Ahmedabad. Off C.G Road, Near Lal Bunglow, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aabca9995Q

unexplained cash credit. In our considered opinion the approach taken by the AO is not justified. As such the AO failed to appreciate the facts, evidence provided, and case laws relied upon by the assessee company. It is pertinent mentioned that the assessee company has taken loan through banking channel and repaid the same in the next year along with

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. REKHA INDRAVADAN CHOKSHI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Department’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

unexplained cash credit and added back to the total income of the assessee under Section 68 of the Act. While passing the order, the AO made the following observations: “From perusal of assessee's reply and above schedule following facts are noticed: 1. Out of total repayments, a sum of Rs.4,82,930/- was paid in cash on 30.07.2016,Rs.2

REKHABEN INDRAVADAN CHOKSHI,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-5(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Department’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

unexplained cash credit and added back to the total income of the assessee under Section 68 of the Act. While passing the order, the AO made the following observations: “From perusal of assessee's reply and above schedule following facts are noticed: 1. Out of total repayments, a sum of Rs.4,82,930/- was paid in cash on 30.07.2016,Rs.2

SHRI PRAVINKUMAR LALBHAI PATEL, INDL.,KALOL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4,, MEHSANA

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

cash withdrawn was again credited in the same bank account within short period and no payments for the expenses retaining the profit of 8% or more, which must have been incurred by these two persons who .were claimed to be the contractors for Uttar Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. on which TDS has been made on the contract receipts which