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

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

2 - Charging of Notional interest on advances given to related\nparties / disallowance under section 36(1)(iii)\n30.\nFor A.Y. 2013–14, the Assessing Officer noted from the books of\naccount and details furnished that the assessee had advanced sums without\ncharging interest to the following parties: (i) Godiji Realty Pvt. Ltd. – Rs.\n2,45,00,000/-, (ii) Venugopal Infrastructure

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

2,14,92,990/-. Consequently, the AO required the assessee,\nvide order sheet entry dated 15.03.2016, to explain the balance amount of\nRs. 15,16,966/- for which no evidence was produced. As neither the assessee\nnor its Authorised Representative could produce any satisfactory details or\nevidence explaining the credit entry of Rs. 15,16,966/- in the books

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

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

2 - Charging of Notional interest on advances given to related\nparties / disallowance under section 36(1)(iii)\n30.\nFor A.Y. 2013–14, the Assessing Officer noted from the books of\naccount and details furnished that the assessee had advanced sums without\ncharging interest to the following parties: (i) Godiji Realty Pvt. Ltd. – Rs.\n2,45,00,000/-, (ii) Venugopal Infrastructure

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

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SANKALP IN, AHMEDABAD

In the result Revenue's Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, Judicial Member\nAnd\nShri NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA (Accountant Member)

253 ITR 454 (Guj);\n* Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT – (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC);\n* Kantilal & Bros. vs. ACIT – (1995) 52 ITD 412 (Pune);\n* Chander Mohan Mehta v ACIT – (1999) ITD 245 (Pune);\n* Biren V. Savla vs. ACIT – (2006) 155 Taxman 270 (Mum);\n* Madhav Corpn. vs ACIT– (2017) 85 taxmann.com 238 (Ahd);\n* DCIT v Kankakia

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SANKALP ORGANISERS PVT LTD , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals in IT(SS)A No

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. 2.1. Accordingly, assessee was called upon to show cause as to why the amount being unaccounted receipts should not be treated as undisclosed income u/s.68 of the Act and the amount being unaccounted payments incurred in cash should

SANKALP ORGANISERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals in IT(SS)A No

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. 2.1. Accordingly, assessee was called upon to show cause as to why the amount being unaccounted receipts should not be treated as undisclosed income u/s.68 of the Act and the amount being unaccounted payments incurred in cash should

SANKALP VENTURE LLP,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals in IT(SS)A No

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. 2.1. Accordingly, assessee was called upon to show cause as to why the amount being unaccounted receipts should not be treated as undisclosed income u/s.68 of the Act and the amount being unaccounted payments incurred in cash should

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD vs. SANKALP VENTURE LLP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals in IT(SS)A No

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. 2.1. Accordingly, assessee was called upon to show cause as to why the amount being unaccounted receipts should not be treated as undisclosed income u/s.68 of the Act and the amount being unaccounted payments incurred in cash should

SANKALP IN,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result Revenue’s Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA (Accountant Member)

253 ITR 454 (Guj); * Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT – (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC); * Kantilal & Bros. vs. ACIT – (1995) 52 ITD 412 (Pune); * Chander Mohan Mehta v ACIT – (1999) ITD 245 (Pune); * Biren V. Savla vs. ACIT – (2006) 155 Taxman 270 (Mum); * Madhav Corpn. vs ACIT– (2017) 85 taxmann.com 238 (Ahd); * DCIT v Kankakia Hospitality

SHAILESHBHAI BHA vs. ANGBHAI CHAVDA,BHAVNAGARVS.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4) BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

bogus long term capital gains/bogus short term capital loss/bogus purchase loss etc. . Various incriminating documents were seized by Revenue during the course of search operations. Therefore, there was a reason to believe that the scrips of M/s. Divine Multimedia India Ltd., M/s. Diamant Infrastructure Ltd. and M/s VMS Industries Ltd. are not genuine. Shri Naresh Jain in his statement recorded

MANMOHAN PRAVINCHANDRA MADANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITIO, WARD-3(2)(10), AHMEDABAD

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

253/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s.40A(3) of the I. T. Act, 1961 in\nrespect of payments made for purchase of goods and labour charges.\n4.\nThe Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the additions made by\nthe Assessing Officer without considering the fact that the alleged cash deposits being\npart of business turnover has already

KRUTIKA ASHWIN SARVAIYA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

2 & 3 of the assessment order , in which the A.O. proposed to make addition of Rs. 20 lacs with respect to cash deposited by the assessee with Bank of India, Panchvati, Ambawadi, Ellisbridge, Gujarat in Bank Account No. 200116710000240 on 23.11.2016 of Rs. 10 lacs and further deposit of Rs. 10 lacs on 03.01.2016, and the assessee was called upon

INNOVATE DERIVATIVES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

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

section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2019-20. I.T.A No. 31/Ahd/2026 A.Y. 2019-20 2 Innovate Derivatives Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of trading in shares and securities, mutual

SAKET M JAIN (HUF),AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Division Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 24.03.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961

bogus transaction. The AO observed that sales tax @15 percent is applicable on the sale of timber/wood , but the assessee has not paid any sales tax and failed to submit its sales tax number/TIN/VAT number. The AO also issued Show Cause Notice(SCN) to the assessee, which is reproduced by the AO in assessment order at page

ILABAHEN VIRALKUMAR MEHTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The

bogus capital gains/losses to various beneficiaries. The assessee being one of the beneficiary. The assessee has not declared and disclosed the transaction of sale and purchase of shares of Hemo Organics Limited in the return of income filed u/s 139, while the assessee declared gains arising on the sale of 8000 shares in the return of income filed in response

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI RANCHHODBHAI MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

253 ITR 454 (Gujarat)(HC) is concerned, the said decision was rendered on a different set of facts, wherein it was observed that when the contents of one part of the Affidavit have been accepted, the tax authority had erred in not accepting the contents of the balance part of the Affidavit. Accordingly, the said decision was rendered

LATE BHAGWATSINH JIBHUBHAI CHAVDA)L/H.BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

253 ITR 454 (Gujarat)(HC) is concerned, the said decision was rendered on a different set of facts, wherein it was observed that when the contents of one part of the Affidavit have been accepted, the tax authority had erred in not accepting the contents of the balance part of the Affidavit. Accordingly, the said decision was rendered