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

164, lends a meaning that denial of entire exemption is not contemplated in Section 13. As there is no apparent violation of provisions of Section 13 as discussed herein above, benefit provided in Section 11 and 12 cannot be denied. 5.8 So far as the activities of the trust are genuine, and income of the trust are applied

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

164, lends a meaning that denial of entire exemption is not contemplated in Section 13. As there is no apparent violation of provisions of Section 13 as discussed herein above, benefit provided in Section 11 and 12 cannot be denied. 5.8 So far as the activities of the trust are genuine, and income of the trust are applied

PARUL UNIVERSITY,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT,EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

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

164, lends a meaning that denial of entire exemption is not contemplated in Section 13. As there is no apparent violation of provisions of Section 13 as discussed herein above, benefit provided in Section 11 and 12 cannot be denied. 5.8 So far as the activities of the trust are genuine, and income of the trust are applied

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

164, lends a meaning that denial of entire exemption is not contemplated in Section 13. As there is no apparent violation of provisions of Section 13 as discussed herein above, benefit provided in Section 11 and 12 cannot be denied. 5.8 So far as the activities of the trust are genuine, and income of the trust are applied

H K ISPAT PVT. LTD.,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

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

purchase amount of Rs. 99,49,624/- under Section 69C of the Act, treating it as unexplained expenditure. 10.3 On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO's finding that the suppliers were non-genuine but disagreed with the 100% disallowance. Relying on jurisdictional precedents, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to 6% of the purchase value, concluding

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

purchase amount of Rs. 99,49,624/- under Section 69C of the Act, treating it as unexplained expenditure. 10.3 On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO's finding that the suppliers were non-genuine but disagreed with the 100% disallowance. Relying on jurisdictional precedents, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to 6% of the purchase value, concluding

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

purchase amount of Rs. 99,49,624/- under Section 69C of the Act, treating it as unexplained expenditure. 10.3 On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO's finding that the suppliers were non-genuine but disagreed with the 100% disallowance. Relying on jurisdictional precedents, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to 6% of the purchase value, concluding

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

164/- being 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded under the provisions of section 271(1)(c)of the Act. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT-A. 7. The assessee before the Ld. CIT-A submitted that the return of income filed under section 153A of the Act is deemed to have been

BHAUMIK JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1642/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Bhaumik Jewellers Private The Ito बनाम/ Limited Ward-1(1)(2) V/S. 111, Gold Souk Complex Ahmedabad B/H. Sapphire Complex Cg Road Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aagcb 2423 B (अपीलाथ)/ Appellant) (*+ यथ)/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short “The Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Dated 26/07/2024 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short “The Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated The Confirmation Of The Addition Of Rs. 9,65,97,834/- Made By The Ao Under Section 68 Of The Act Bhaumik Jewellers Private Limited Vs. The Ito Asst. Year : 2017-18

section 115BBE of the Act, treating the same as income from undisclosed sources. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A), however, confirmed the action of the AO. The CIT(A) relied heavily upon the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vaishnavi

GITABEN DINESHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

purchased, nor was any material placed on record to justify the astronomical rise in its share price within a short span of time. Mere reliance on contract notes, demat statements, and bank payment records cannot discharge the onus placed upon the assessee under section 68 of the Act to prove the genuineness of the transactions, particularly when the surrounding facts

SHRI UMANG HIRALAL THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2150/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Dharmadev House, Income-Tax, Shyamal Cross Road, Satellite, Central Circle 1(1), Ahmedabad – 380015 Ahmedabad Pan : Aavpt 8621 R आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2548/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. 305, Sahajanand Plaza, Bhatta Income-Tax, Ch Ar Rasta, Paldi, Ahmedabad Central Circle 1(1), Pan : Aavpt 8621 R Ahmedabad अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" यथ" िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, Cit-Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

section 68 of the Act on this count.” 6.4 As is evident from the above, the ITAT noted that the Assessing Officer had made addition in the absence of any evidence filed by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) had admitted the additional evidences filed by the assessee in this regard, and after appreciating the same and seeking a report

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI UMANG H. THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2150/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Dharmadev House, Income-Tax, Shyamal Cross Road, Satellite, Central Circle 1(1), Ahmedabad – 380015 Ahmedabad Pan : Aavpt 8621 R आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2548/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. 305, Sahajanand Plaza, Bhatta Income-Tax, Ch Ar Rasta, Paldi, Ahmedabad Central Circle 1(1), Pan : Aavpt 8621 R Ahmedabad अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" यथ" िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, Cit-Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

section 68 of the Act on this count.” 6.4 As is evident from the above, the ITAT noted that the Assessing Officer had made addition in the absence of any evidence filed by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) had admitted the additional evidences filed by the assessee in this regard, and after appreciating the same and seeking a report

ASHISH MANOJ BHATIA,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRLCE-4(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year : 2015-16 Ashish Manoj Bhatia Dcit, Cir.4(2) 10, Kameshwardev Society Vs Ahmedabad. Opp: Kishan Bungalows Bodakdev, Ahmedabad. Pan : Ahspb 1199 E

section 10(38) of the Act, being held as bogus and addition made of the entire sale consideration received accordingly to the income of assessee treating entire transaction only as accommodation entry. The relevant facts and finding of the ld.CIT(A) in this regard at para 4 of his order is as under: “4. DECISION: I have gone through

MOHAMMED SALEEM ABDULKADER KAJALWALA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(3), VADODARA

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

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual and Proprietor in the name and style of Mohammed Enterprise engaged I.T.A No. 536/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 2 Mohammed Saleem Abdulkader Kajalwala

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

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

164 ITR 102), and the\nHon'ble Bombay High Court in Amrit Lal & Co. (108 ITR 719) and Ciba\nDyes Ltd. v. CIT (25 ITR 102), the Assessing Officer concluded that the mere\nproduction of vouchers was insufficient to discharge the burden of proof\nunder section 37(1) of the Act, particularly when the genuineness of\nexpenditure was in doubt

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

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

164 ITR 102), and the\nHon'ble Bombay High Court in Amrit Lal & Co. (108 ITR 719) and Ciba\nDyes Ltd. v. CIT (25 ITR 102), the Assessing Officer concluded that the mere\nproduction of vouchers was insufficient to discharge the burden of proof\nunder section 37(1) of the Act, particularly when the genuineness of\nexpenditure was in doubt

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. BHAVESHKUMAR GIRISHBHAI BHANDARI, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

Appeal is allowed in ITA 978/Ahd/2025 and ITA\n978/Ahd/2025 as well

section 10(38) in respect of\nsimilar penny stock transactions and dismissing the assessee's appeal on the\nground that such transactions were found to be sham and bogus. The\nSupreme Court categorically held that the findings of the Tribunal and High\nCourt that the company involved was a penny stock and that the entire\ntransaction was not genuine, were

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

164 ITR 102), and the\nHon'ble Bombay High Court in Amrit Lal & Co. (108 ITR 719) and Ciba\nDyes Ltd. v. CIT (25 ITR 102), the Assessing Officer concluded that the mere\nproduction of vouchers was insufficient to discharge the burden of proof\nunder section 37(1) of the Act, particularly when the genuineness of\nexpenditure was in doubt