JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

bogus transactions was cited. The findings in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (supra), thus, reinforce the AR’s position that completed assessments should remain intact when no new incriminating material is discovered. 10.3. In the case of Vijaykumar D. Agarwal (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench dealt with the scope of section 153A if the Act assessments where no incriminating material

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

bogus transactions was cited. The findings in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (supra), thus, reinforce the AR’s position that completed assessments should remain intact when no new incriminating material is discovered. 10.3. In the case of Vijaykumar D. Agarwal (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench dealt with the scope of section 153A if the Act assessments where no incriminating material

THE ACIT,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

bogus transactions was cited. The findings in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (supra), thus, reinforce the AR’s position that completed assessments should remain intact when no new incriminating material is discovered. 10.3. In the case of Vijaykumar D. Agarwal (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench dealt with the scope of section 153A if the Act assessments where no incriminating material

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

bogus transactions was cited. The findings in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (supra), thus, reinforce the AR’s position that completed assessments should remain intact when no new incriminating material is discovered. 10.3. In the case of Vijaykumar D. Agarwal (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench dealt with the scope of section 153A if the Act assessments where no incriminating material

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

bogus transactions was cited. The findings in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (supra), thus, reinforce the AR’s position that completed assessments should remain intact when no new incriminating material is discovered. 10.3. In the case of Vijaykumar D. Agarwal (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench dealt with the scope of section 153A if the Act assessments where no incriminating material

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

bogus transactions was cited. The findings in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (supra), thus, reinforce the AR’s position that completed assessments should remain intact when no new incriminating material is discovered. 10.3. In the case of Vijaykumar D. Agarwal (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench dealt with the scope of section 153A if the Act assessments where no incriminating material

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

bogus transactions was cited. The findings in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (supra), thus, reinforce the AR’s position that completed assessments should remain intact when no new incriminating material is discovered. 10.3. In the case of Vijaykumar D. Agarwal (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench dealt with the scope of section 153A if the Act assessments where no incriminating material

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

bogus transactions was cited. The findings in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (supra), thus, reinforce the AR’s position that completed assessments should remain intact when no new incriminating material is discovered. 10.3. In the case of Vijaykumar D. Agarwal (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench dealt with the scope of section 153A if the Act assessments where no incriminating material

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

bogus transactions was cited. The findings in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (supra), thus, reinforce the AR’s position that completed assessments should remain intact when no new incriminating material is discovered. 10.3. In the case of Vijaykumar D. Agarwal (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench dealt with the scope of section 153A if the Act assessments where no incriminating material

THE ACIT,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

bogus transactions was cited. The findings in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (supra), thus, reinforce the AR’s position that completed assessments should remain intact when no new incriminating material is discovered. 10.3. In the case of Vijaykumar D. Agarwal (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench dealt with the scope of section 153A if the Act assessments where no incriminating material

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

bogus transactions was cited. The findings in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (supra), thus, reinforce the AR’s position that completed assessments should remain intact when no new incriminating material is discovered. 10.3. In the case of Vijaykumar D. Agarwal (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench dealt with the scope of section 153A if the Act assessments where no incriminating material

SHRI HIRALAL D. THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), , AHMEDABAD

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

153A of the Act was completed on 30.3.2016 by making an addition of Rs.19,74,000/- on account of certain cash deposits in the bank. However, it was noticed by the Pr.CIT (Central) that no inquiry was made about the bogus expenditure of Rs.3,72,45,001/- which were made during the period 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2009 by Swaminarayan (Jivraj Park

SHRI HIRALAL D. THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), , AHMEDABAD

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

153A of the Act was completed on 30.3.2016 by making an addition of Rs.19,74,000/- on account of certain cash deposits in the bank. However, it was noticed by the Pr.CIT (Central) that no inquiry was made about the bogus expenditure of Rs.3,72,45,001/- which were made during the period 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2009 by Swaminarayan (Jivraj Park

ACIT CC 2(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. AISHA DHIRAJ GOGIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result: 50. To summarize the final outcome:

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha["ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" एवं "ी नरे" साद िस!ा, लेखा सद" के सम#।]

section 153A of the Act, the AO noted from the digital data found during the search action contained a copy of the Distribution Deed of land bearing Survey No. 43/4/1 situated at Bodakdev, Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad entered between Shri Ashokbhai Krishnagiri (1st Party) and Shri Kishor Krishnagiri & Shri Anup Krishnagiri (2nd Party). The AO noted that the assessee had purchased Shop

ROBIN RAMAVTAR GOENKA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue IT[SS]A Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

purchases, brokerage, salaries, personal expenses and jewellery were seized. Statements of key employees of the group handling cash transactions were recorded. Consequently, assessments were framed under sections 153A and 143[3] of the Act for the Asst Years 2018-19 & 2019-20 whereby Assessment Year wise unaccounted cash receipts and payments, as summarized by the AO, is given below

M/S. M.P. AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all appeals of the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Roy

bogus purchases by the assessee, which, according to the learned Assessing Officer, was done by the assessee with an intention to inflate the purchase and reduce the profit. The said assessment was ultimately finalized under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), VADODARA vs. SHRI SANJIV CHANDRAVADAN SHAH, VADODARA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed and ITA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

153A of the Act declaring total income at Rs.59,60,880/- was filed by the assessee on 23.04.2015. The total income was assessed at Rs.4,35,95,804/- thereby making addition under Section 69A of the Act relating to Unexplained Bullion (Rs.11,38,410/-) and disallowance under Section 80IB(11C) of the Act. 12. The Ld. AR submitted that

SHRI SANJIV CHANDRAVADAN SHAH,VADODARA vs. TEH DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed and ITA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

153A of the Act declaring total income at Rs.59,60,880/- was filed by the assessee on 23.04.2015. The total income was assessed at Rs.4,35,95,804/- thereby making addition under Section 69A of the Act relating to Unexplained Bullion (Rs.11,38,410/-) and disallowance under Section 80IB(11C) of the Act. 12. The Ld. AR submitted that