AURA SECURITIES PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

purchased the shares at a higher value, then it would be questionable, but it is not so, in the present case and hence, we find no merit in the orders of authorities below in holding that the loss claimed by selling the shares of GGDL to its 100% subsidiary below the book value should be ignored while setting

THE DCIT(OSD), CIRCLE-9,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. SHUKAN BUILDERS,, AHMEDABAD

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

section 143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). AY: 2010-11 ITA No. 1518/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2010-11(Assessee’s Appeal):- The first issue raised by the assessee is that the Learned CIT(A) erred in 2. confirming the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.62,51,247/- as bogus purchases. 3. The facts

SHUKAN BUILDERS,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT(OSD), CIRCLE-9,, AHMEDABAD

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

section 143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). AY: 2010-11 ITA No. 1518/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2010-11(Assessee’s Appeal):- The first issue raised by the assessee is that the Learned CIT(A) erred in 2. confirming the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.62,51,247/- as bogus purchases. 3. The facts

DISHMAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and its cross objections are dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Sinh

purchased, how production could be started. This aspect has been considered by the ld.CIT(A) while taking note of these facts in paragraph 3.4 at page no.38 of the impugned order. We have taken cognizance of this paragraph in the earlier part of this order, therefore we are of the view that the ld.CIT(A) has appreciated the facts

THE ITO, WARD-1(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DISHMAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and its cross objections are dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Sinh

purchased, how production could be started. This aspect has been considered by the ld.CIT(A) while taking note of these facts in paragraph 3.4 at page no.38 of the impugned order. We have taken cognizance of this paragraph in the earlier part of this order, therefore we are of the view that the ld.CIT(A) has appreciated the facts

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

purchase of the properties should be made taxable under the head capital gain and accordingly the assessee is entitled for the exemption under section 54F of the Act. Thus, it seems to us by this finding of the ITAT (us), the grievance of the revenue is answered against it. 15.13 However, for the completeness of the case, we are inclined

ADANI AGRO PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee appeal is thus allowed

Bench: Shri O. P. Meena& Ms. Madhumita Roy

purchased the shares at a higher value, then it would be questionable, but it is not so, in the present case and hence, we find no merit in the orders of authorities below in holding that the loss claimed by selling the shares of GGDL to its 100% subsidiary below the book value should be ignored while setting

SHRI MUKESH RASIKLAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9, NOW CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

253 pages), 28-11-2006, and thus overruled the directions of Hon’ble ITAT. VI (17) That learned ACIT ought to have appreciated that alleged income tax refund money receipts, which belongs to Govt. of India, and hence recovered fully with interest, does not constitute income chargeable to tax u/s. 2 (24)/U/s. 4 r.w. other sections

SHRI MUKESH RASIKLAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9, NOW CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

253 pages), 28-11-2006, and thus overruled the directions of Hon’ble ITAT. VI (17) That learned ACIT ought to have appreciated that alleged income tax refund money receipts, which belongs to Govt. of India, and hence recovered fully with interest, does not constitute income chargeable to tax u/s. 2 (24)/U/s. 4 r.w. other sections

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. EL DORADO BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

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

2,91,48,000 Ltd. 4. S.J. Securities Ltd. AAICS9627C 7142 1,99,97,600 5. Incap Financial Services Ltd. AABCI0538B 7142 1,99,97,600 Total 106532 29,82,89,600 5. The assessee for the year under consideration filed its return of incomedeclaring total income at Rs. Nil dated 30th September 2009 which was processed under Section

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

2,14,92,990/-, (ii) revenue tax of Rs.16,960/-, and (iii) Rs.15,00,000/- paid to Shri Mahesh Karsanbhai to avoid litigation in respect of acquisition of certain land. It was explained that the land in question was acquired in the preceding year and the payment to Shri Mahesh Karsanbhai was in the nature of compensation to prevent

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

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

2,71,35,000/-) including declaration of loss of Rs. 14,48,420/- aggregating to Rs. 28,05,170/- only. Thus the AO imposed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at Rs. 16,66,271/- only being 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded. 3. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before

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

SMT. PARAMADEVI TEKRIWAL, ,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(5),, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. Paramadevi Tekriwal, The Income-Tax Officer, D-143, Kaliyabid, Bhavnagar Vs Ward 1(5), Pan : Addpt 3030 F Bhavnagar अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad (“Cit(A)” In Short) Dated 09.07.2018. 2. The Relevant Facts Of The Case Giving Rise To This Appeal Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Who Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Originally On 16.03.2014. Although The Said Return Was Originally Accepted Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short), The Assessment Was Subsequently Reopened By The Assessing Officer On The Basis Of Information Received From Investigation Wing Of The Income-Tax Department That The Long Term Capital Gains Of Rs.1,13,53,982/- Arising From The Sale Of Equity Shares Of Kgn Enterprise Ltd. For A Consideration Of Rs.1,13,87,902/- Claimed As Exempt In The Return Of Income Was Bogus & It Was Actually An Accommodation Entry. The Assessing Officer Accordingly Issued A Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act To Smt. Paramadevi Tekriwal Vs. Ito Ay : 2013-14 2

Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. The assessing officer held that the aforesaid transactions of purchase of two Smt. Paramadevi Tekriwal Vs. ITO AY : 2013-14 12 penny stock shares for Rs.60,000/-, the merger of the companies with a new company and the sale of the shares for Rs.11,58,930/- fell within the ambit of adventure

ALPA UDAYKUMAR SHAH,,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2),, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Memebr

2,80 crores respectively. Thus the company had minuscule business activity, In previous years ending from March 2011 to March 2014, the company had profit of 0.01 crores, 0.59 crores, 0.99 crores and 0.62 crores respectively. Thus the company had either negligible profit showing that the company was not having a substantial business activity. It defies logic

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-3(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KRAFT LAMINATE, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Years : 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Kraft Laminate, Income-Tax, Vs C/O. Laxmi Timber, Nr. Circle 3(2), Ahmedabad Mahalaxmi Textile Mill, Opp. Rajbai Patel Timber Market, Narol Naroda Highway, Narol, Ahmedabad-382405 Pan : Aamfk 8120 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-:

2 DINESHBHAI HARIBHAI PATEL (HUF) ARJPP3870H 200000.00 LOAN GIVEN VIA CHEQUE FROM OWN BANK ADD: 16, BASHIDHAR SOC. NR. ACCOUNT. PAN CARD AND ITR ARE ON FILE AND BANSHIDHAR GARDEN, VASNA, THUS SOURCE OF IMCOME BEING BUSINESS INCOME AHMEDABAD - 380007 AND LOAN AMOUNT GIVEN IS VERIFIED HEREWITH 3 KIREN PRAVINBHAI PATEL, ARJPP3870H 250000.00 LOAN GIVEN VIA CHEQUE FROM OWN BANK

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