PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

bogus corpus donations based on incriminating documents and extrapolating the available data. The AO disallowed exemptions under Sections 11 and 12, treating the income as normal business income due to violations of the trust's objectives. The Ld.CIT(A) partially upheld the AO's additions but allowed the exemptions under Sections 11 and 12, concluding there was no apparent violation

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

bogus corpus donations based on incriminating documents and extrapolating the available data. The AO disallowed exemptions under Sections 11 and 12, treating the income as normal business income due to violations of the trust's objectives. The Ld.CIT(A) partially upheld the AO's additions but allowed the exemptions under Sections 11 and 12, concluding there was no apparent violation

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST, , AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

bogus corpus donations based on incriminating documents and extrapolating the available data. The AO disallowed exemptions under Sections 11 and 12, treating the income as normal business income due to violations of the trust's objectives. The Ld.CIT(A) partially upheld the AO's additions but allowed the exemptions under Sections 11 and 12, concluding there was no apparent violation

SHRI BALDEVBHAI ATMARAM PATEL,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

13,448/- at the rate of 100% of tax evaded. (d) Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) at the rate of 300% of tax Rs. 1,05,40,344/- evaded. 8. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case a lump sum penalty of Rs. 36,00,0007- (Rs. thirty six lacs only) imposed as against maximum penalty leviable

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DINESHCHANDRA R AGRAWAL INFRACON PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 85/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14

13. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the preceding discussion, we note that the penalty has been imposed by the AO under section 271 (1)(c) without mentioning the specific charge in the penalty order dated 21/03/2018, whether, it was levied on account of concealment of income

M/S. MORAKHIA COPPER & ALLOYS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 161/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 M/S. Morakhia Copper & Alloys Pvt. A.C.I.T., Ltd., Vs. Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), 12, 2Nd Floor, B Wing, Ahmedabad. Mardia Plaza, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacm3439J

bogus purchases shown by the assessee cannot be treated as income of the assessee. What should be brought to tax is the income earned by the assessee whether it was from legal or illegal source. Accordingly the ITAT estimated the amount of profit embedded in such purchases. But the estimation of profit does not lead to draw that the assessee

M/S. WORLD TRADE IMPEX LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

13 party from its own books which was not confirmed by the impugned party. Hence the learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 24. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 25. The learned AR before us submitted that there cannot be any addition on account of difference in the ledger

WORLD TRADE IMPEX LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-4,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

13 party from its own books which was not confirmed by the impugned party. Hence the learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 24. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 25. The learned AR before us submitted that there cannot be any addition on account of difference in the ledger

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SANJAY PRATAPRAI MEHTA, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

purchase of shares in the impugned scrip of M/s Comfort Fincap Ltd only and earned exempted long-term capital. As such the assessee has made investment in shares of various private and public company which are detailed as under: Sanjay P. Mehta 1563/A, “AASHIRWAD” Rupani Sardarnagar Road, Bhavnagar. Investments. Group Summary 1-Apr-2013 to 31-Mar-2014 Closing Balance

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

c) read with section 274 of the Act were separately initiated on this\nissue.\n59. In appeal, the assessee contended before the CIT(A) that the amount\nof Rs. 15,16,966/- comprised three elements (i) land expense of Rs.\n2,14,92,990/-, (ii) revenue tax of Rs. 16,960/-, and (iii) Rs. 15,00,000/- paid to\nShri

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-6,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ZODIAC EICHER,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. In this case, return of income declaring income of Rs. 13,08,572/- was filed on 31st December, 2006. Subsequently the case was selected under scrutiny by issue of notice under section 143(2) of the act on 28th June 2007. On I.T.A No. 2258/Ahd/2014

MARDIA COPPER EXTRUTIONS PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 229/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 1990-1991 M/S Mardia Copper Extrusions Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T, C/O Mehta Lodha & Co., Vs. Circle-2(1)(2), 105, Sakar-I, Near Gandhigram Railway Ahmedabad. Station, Off Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aabcm3848G

section 271(1)(c) would be deemed to be representing the income in respect of which inaccurate particulars have been furnished. 13. In the light of the above, if we examine the facts of the present case, then it would reveal that as far as addition with respect to suppressed profit is concerned, it is an estimated addition which

SHRI ATUL BABUBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT.,RANGE-10,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountantmember & Ms. Madhumita Roy

c) of the Act dated 28/03/2012 and assessment order u/s.143(3) dated 21/12/2011 relevant to Assessment Years (AYs) 2007-08, 2007-08 and 2009-10 respectively. First we take up ITA No.76/Ahd/2011 for AY 2007-08, wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 11.1. the order passed u/s.250

SHRI ATULBHAI BABUBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-10,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountantmember & Ms. Madhumita Roy

c) of the Act dated 28/03/2012 and assessment order u/s.143(3) dated 21/12/2011 relevant to Assessment Years (AYs) 2007-08, 2007-08 and 2009-10 respectively. First we take up ITA No.76/Ahd/2011 for AY 2007-08, wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 11.1. the order passed u/s.250

SHRI ATULBHAI BABULAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-11,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountantmember & Ms. Madhumita Roy

c) of the Act dated 28/03/2012 and assessment order u/s.143(3) dated 21/12/2011 relevant to Assessment Years (AYs) 2007-08, 2007-08 and 2009-10 respectively. First we take up ITA No.76/Ahd/2011 for AY 2007-08, wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 11.1. the order passed u/s.250

M/S. BLUERAY TRADING PVT LTD.,MAHARASTRA vs. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

1 to sub-section 263 of the Act which reads as under: “(c) where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer had been the subject matter of any appeal [filed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988], the powers of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under this sub-section

DCIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ALPESHKUMAR C.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1908/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive In Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. Pan: Aeapp9489G

13. On the other hand, the learned AR before us filed two sets of paper book running from pages 1 to 167 and 1 to 114 and contended that the property in dispute was actually transferred at ₹ 1,10,77,526 +15 lakhs of rupees. Therefore no addition of whatsoever can be made in the hands of the assessee

SMT. REKHA ANIL DUGGAD,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumar

bogus purchase and an addition of Rs. 38,00,000/- was being made and determined the taxable income as Rs. 19,61,059/-. Following this assessment order, penalty proceeding was initiated against the husband and levied a penalty of Rs. 13,00,000/- under Section 271(1)(c