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

money received by the assessee on sale of flats, etc. ITA Nos.1450&1451 and 1562&1563/Ahd/2024 (By Revenue) DCIT vs. Hindva Builders Asst. Years : 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2017-18 respectively This issue is identical to that has been discussed above for AY 2016-17. The Ld. CIT(A) has also given his finding for the year under

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

money received by the assessee on sale of flats, etc. ITA Nos.1450&1451 and 1562&1563/Ahd/2024 (By Revenue) DCIT vs. Hindva Builders Asst. Years : 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2017-18 respectively This issue is identical to that has been discussed above for AY 2016-17. The Ld. CIT(A) has also given his finding for the year under

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

money received by the assessee on sale of flats, etc. ITA Nos.1450&1451 and 1562&1563/Ahd/2024 (By Revenue) DCIT vs. Hindva Builders Asst. Years : 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2017-18 respectively This issue is identical to that has been discussed above for AY 2016-17. The Ld. CIT(A) has also given his finding for the year under

SHRI KALPESH BHUPENDRABHAI BRAHAMBHATT,,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2), NOW WARD-3(1)(2),, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1990/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 Kalpesh Bhupendrabhai Vs. Ito, Brahambhatt, Ward – 5(2), Baroda, B/12, Mrudand Park Society, Now 3(1)(2), B/H. Bright School, Vip Road, Vadodara. Karelibaug, Vadodara – 390 018. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Apoorva Bhardwaj, Sr.D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Vadodara [“Cit(A)” In Short] Relevant To Assessment Year 2011- 12. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Revised Grounds Of Appeal Vide Letter Dated 6Th August, 2018 Which Are Reproduced As Under: “1. The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Not Admitting The Additional Evidences Filed In Support Of The Appellant'S Claim Against The Additions Made In The Assessment. The Hon'Ble Tribunal Be Pleased To Admit The Same & Allow Necessary Reliefs. 2. The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. A.O. In Holding That An Amount Of Rs.22,71,343/- Received In The Course Of Business Of Plying Of Motor Trucks Was To Be Assessed U/S. 56 Of The It Act & That No Further Allowance Of Expenditure From The Same Could Be Allowed.

unexplained money. The amount of Rs.385,000/- being fully explained may please be held so and that the addition may please be deleted. 4. The Appellant craves the liberty to add, alter, modify or withdraw any of the Grounds of Appeal.” 3. The first issue raised by the assessee in this appeal is that ld. CIT(A) erred in treating

HARISHKUMAR KHUSHALRAY BHATT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(2) NOW WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Harishkumar Khushalray Bhatt Ito, Ward-3(3)(2) P/1, Chandragupta Apartment Vs. Ahmedabad. Nr. Gordhandas Patel Hospital Vastrapur Ahmedabad. Pan : Abspb 3786 F (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Pritesh L. Shah, Ar : Shri Uday Kishanrao Kakne, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

money under section 69A of the Act. In addition, the AO recorded an 3 alternative finding that since the assessee had maintained books of account and the deposits were reflected in the cash book, the same could also be brought to tax under section 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credits. 4. The AO noted that the assessee

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

unexplained money within the meaning of section 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

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

AMBANI BUILDERS PRIVATE LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

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

money u/s 69A of the Act. 5.4 Revenue recognition out of unexplained Closing Stock of finished goods: The AO noticed that during the year, the assessee has reported substantially high Closing Stock of Rs 20,74,62,650/- (Constituting finished goods of Rs.5,38,62.200/- plus Work-in-Progress of Rs.15,36.00,450/-) Verification of genuineness of such closing stock

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

unexplained money under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Act. The Assessing Officer further made observation that the TDS

CHIRAG HIRALAL PATEL,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2697/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2020-2021 Chirag Hiralal Patel, The Income Tax Officer, बनामVs. Plot No.973/2, Ward-1, Sector 2C, Gandhinagar. Gandhinagar-382002. Pan: Avwpp9239K

unexplained money. 10. The learned CIT(A) erred in law by not considering the fact that the learned Assessing Officer has erred both in law and on the facts of the case by making the addition of Rs. 23.02.000 u/s 69A of the Act by relying on Whats App chats, loose documents and other seized material. 11. The learned

UMESHKUMAR PRATAPRAI AWTANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2019-20

unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act? 2. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the act? Further, appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw all or any ground of appeal.” I.T.A No. 1976/Ahd/2025 Umeshkumar Prataprai Awtani, A.Y. 2019-20 3. The assessee

GUJARAT STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

unexplained money. ITA Nos. 1316 & 1317/Ahd/2025 – Gujarat State Agriculture Mktg Board Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 & 2017-18 - 2– 2. The learned A.O. has erred in law and on facts in not considering the facts that the Income of assessee is exempt u/s 10(26AAB) of the Act. 3. The learned assessing officer has erred

GUJARAT STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

unexplained money. ITA Nos. 1316 & 1317/Ahd/2025 – Gujarat State Agriculture Mktg Board Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 & 2017-18 - 2– 2. The learned A.O. has erred in law and on facts in not considering the facts that the Income of assessee is exempt u/s 10(26AAB) of the Act. 3. The learned assessing officer has erred

DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEBABAD vs. TECHNO INDUSTRIES, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalthe Deputy Commissioner Of Techno Industries, Vs. Income Tax, Plot No.613, Phase Iv Gidc, Circle 3(1)(1), Vatva, Ahmedabad-382245. Ahmedabad. [Pan :Aacft1503 D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Abhijit, Sr. Dr Respondent By: Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Date Of Hearing 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.09.2025

unexplained money under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid addition made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee and the materials on record, deleted the addition. 4. Aggrieved by the order

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-:-

unexplained money of the assessee as per provisions of Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and to be taxed u/s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961," 5.4 On going through the observations of the AO, it is seen that the AO has stated the transaction to be of superficial nature and a colorful device, to give

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RAJESHKUMAR RAMESHCHANDRA SHAH, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

money. 18. Our finding given above is peculiar to this case. because here in this case in the earlier years, scrutiny assessment have been done whereby the assessee's opening stock, closing stock and trading activities have been duly accepted and it is not a simple case where mere return income has been accepted under s. 143(1). Thus

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

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

TDS had also been\ndeducted, the assessee failed to provide any supporting documentation such\nas work details, expenditure incurred, or material purchases to substantiate\nthe contract income received by him. Further, the Assessing Officer noted\nthat the assessee had invested a sum of ₹1.42 crore in two fixed deposits and\nreceived ₹17 lakh as maturity proceeds, yet the assessee provided

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

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

TDS had also been\ndeducted, the assessee failed to provide any supporting documentation such\nas work details, expenditure incurred, or material purchases to substantiate\nthe contract income received by him. Further, the Assessing Officer noted\nthat the assessee had invested a sum of ₹1.42 crore in two fixed deposits and\nreceived ₹17 lakh as maturity proceeds, yet the assessee provided