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

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

142(1)\ndated 07.03.2016, the assessee was called upon to produce details with\nevidence regarding the cost of land of Rs.2,30,09,656/-. In response, the\nassessee produced only a ledger copy of the cost of land without supporting\nevidence. Accordingly, vide order sheet entry, the assessee was asked to\nshow cause why the cost of land taken

THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VADODARA vs. PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD., VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

142(1)\ndated 07.03.2016, the assessee was called upon to produce details with\nevidence regarding the cost of land of Rs.2,30,09,656/-. In response, the\nassessee produced only a ledger copy of the cost of land without supporting\nevidence. Accordingly, vide order sheet entry, the assessee was asked to\nshow cause why the cost of land taken

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

142(2A) makes it clear that such transactions were not carried out at NSEL platform. However, details submitted by appellant clearly prove that there is only time gap of one day between purchase and sale of CWO with TPPL. The appellant has not explained the reasons for purchase and sell of exactly same quantity of goods with TPPL within

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

142(2A) makes it clear that such transactions were not carried out at NSEL platform. However, details submitted by appellant clearly prove that there is only time gap of one day between purchase and sale of CWO with TPPL. The appellant has not explained the reasons for purchase and sell of exactly same quantity of goods with TPPL within

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR vs. LEELA GREENSHIP RECYCLING PRIVATE LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of above directions

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 2111/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Leela Greenship Recycling Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Office No.303, 3Rd Floor, बनाम/ Commissioner V/S. B Wing, Leela Efcee, Of Income Tax, Near Aksharwadi Temple, Circle-1, Waghawadi Road, Bhavnagar. Bhavnagar-364002. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aagcg8956L

142(1) were issued and complied with, albeit partially, culminating in the assessment order passed on 09.03.2023 under section 147 r.w.s. 144B. n the course of reassessment, the assessee produced purchase register entries, ledger and confirmation from M/s. Mahadev Trading Co., invoices and transport documents, RTGS evidence of payments, matching entries in GSTR-2A; and handwritten weighment slips

DILIPKUMAR PASHABHAI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/Sf 211 Pushp Business Campus Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr. Vastral Cross Road Ahmedabad Sp Ring Road Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 418 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atrpp 9632 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

142(1) regarding the activities, declaring the disputed total same income transactions income as in the and verify computatio original the n, and the return filed authenticity return filed under section ITA Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati vs. ITO Asst. Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 of the credits in response 139(1), in the books. to section without 148. additional

DILIPKUMAR PASHABHAI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/Sf 211 Pushp Business Campus Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr. Vastral Cross Road Ahmedabad Sp Ring Road Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 418 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atrpp 9632 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

142(1) regarding the activities, declaring the disputed total same income transactions income as in the and verify computatio original the n, and the return filed authenticity return filed under section ITA Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati vs. ITO Asst. Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 of the credits in response 139(1), in the books. to section without 148. additional

SHAH RAKESH BHIKHABHAI (HUF),AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

bogus and deny exemption under section 10(38) - Held, yes [Paras 6.3, 6.5 and 6.11] [In favour of assessee]…” 8.2. Whereas in the present case, a show-cause notice was issued by the Ld.PCIT on 27.03.2023 and on the request made by the assessee, the relevant portion of the statement of Shri Champak N Prajapati was provided to the assessee

SANKET RAMNIKLAL JOISAR,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX WARD 1(2)(1), AHD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above\nterms

bogus purchases were unjustified. The assessee had demonstrated that no purchases were made from the identified parties, a fact admitted by the AO.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 145 of Income Tax Act, 1961", "Section 142(1

LEELA GREENSHIP RECYCLING PVT. LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes in terms of above directions

142(1) were issued and\ncomplied with, albeit partially, culminating in the assessment order passed\non 09.03.2023 under section 147 r.w.s.144B. n the course of reassessment,\nthe assessee produced purchase register entries, ledger and confirmation\nfrom M/s. Mahadev Trading Co., invoices and transport documents, RTGS\nevidence of payments, matching entries in GSTR-2A; and handwritten\nweighment slips. The AO rejected

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

Section 35(1)(ii) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. On 27/01/2015, the Investigation Wing Kolkata conducted survey and recorded statement of Founder and Secretary Smt. Samadrita Mukherjee Sardar who has signed the donation receipt was recorded in which she accepted that the said institute is engaged in providing bills in guise of Donation and money is routed back

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

Section 35(1)(ii) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. On 27/01/2015, the Investigation Wing Kolkata conducted survey and recorded statement of Founder and Secretary Smt. Samadrita Mukherjee Sardar who has signed the donation receipt was recorded in which she accepted that the said institute is engaged in providing bills in guise of Donation and money is routed back

RACHNA SANJAY SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT, AHMEDABAD -1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri/St.R. Senthil Kumar & Narendra Prasad Sinhaasst.Year :2014-2015 Rachana Sanjay Shah The Pr.Cit-1 72, Tapovan Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Manekbaug Hall Ambawadi Ahmedabad 380015. Pan : Amdps 6571 P

section 142(1) dated 25.11.2021, the assessee asked to furnish the detai assessee asked to furnish the details relating to the sale of shares ls relating to the sale of shares viz. “LHSL” amounting amounting to Rs.92,12,772/-. In response to the notice, . In response to the notice, the assessee filed a detailed reply as follows: the assessee filed

JITENDRA RAJKUMAR AGARWAL (PROPRIETOR OF SHRI SHIV SHAKTI ENTERPRISE),AHMEDABAD vs. ASESSMENT UNIT, IT DEPARTMENT JURIS. AO- THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

bogus purchase accommodation entries from M/s. S. K. Enterprises amounting to Rs. 1,75,16,480/- without actual movement or delivery of goods. Based on this information, the assessment was reopened by issuance of notice under section 148 read with section 147 of the Act. 3. During reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued notices under sections 142

PARAG DAVE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1) (PREVIOUSLY CIRCLE-3(3)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Makarand V. Mahadeokarassessment Year 2016-17

142(1) along with questionnaire were sent on 06-08-2018, 21-08-2018 and 27-09- 2018. In response to the said notices, the assessee filed reply on various dates. The Assessing Officer observed that in the statement of total income and annexure of column no. 19 in the I.T.A No. 894/Ahd/2024 Parag Dave, A.Y. 2016-17 Form

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. JOHN ENERGY LTD.,, MEHSANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

142(1) of the Act dated 07.05.2015. The reply of the assessee was considered and the Assessing Officer observed that the whole report is the crucial evidence in assessee’s case. On cross-verification of the said information, the Assessing Officer observed that the details provided by the assessee reveals that the same was entered into such transaction with

M/S. JOHN ENERGY LTD.,,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT., MEHSANA CIRCLE,, MEHSANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

142(1) of the Act dated 07.05.2015. The reply of the assessee was considered and the Assessing Officer observed that the whole report is the crucial evidence in assessee’s case. On cross-verification of the said information, the Assessing Officer observed that the details provided by the assessee reveals that the same was entered into such transaction with

THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. CREDO REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD(NOW AS M/S. CSBPROJECT PVT. LTD), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose\nand the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

1). The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of\nRs.1,53,59,000/- made on account of disallowance of non-genuine\nexpenses claimed in Trading Account.\n(2).\nThe Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of\nRs.2,50,00,000/- made on account

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

142(1) were not issued within stipulated time. Secondly, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the notices were issued after taking due approval from competent authority, well within time, prior to reopening the assessment of the assessee and accordingly, the Assessing Officer had taken all legal steps before initiating action in terms of Sections 147 / 148 of the Act. Accordingly