THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI RAJENDRA J KESHWANI (HUF), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.30/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Dcit Shri Rajendra J. Keshwani बनाम/ Central Circle-1(1) (Huf) V/S. Ahmedabad-380 009 44, Asopalav Bungalows Nr.Muktidham Jain Temple Thaltej, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaehk 1973 J अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

Section 68 unless there is specific material to prove that the transaction is a sham. Furthermore, the Co-ordinate bench, in the case of Denisha Rajendra Keshwani (ITA No. 39/Ahd/2021), dismissed the Revenue’s appeal in a case with identical facts, holding that the assessee had duly discharged the onus by providing all necessary documents, while the Revenue failed

SHITAL VIPULKUMAR DHOLAKIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

264–279 of P/B); - Sales and stock register (pages 62–75 of P/B); - Ledger accounts and GST returns of suppliers (pages 149–263 of P/B); - Tax audit report and annual accounts (pages 104–132 of P/B). 2.11 The AR highlighted that no defect had been pointed out in these documentary evidences, and despite multiple submissions, the AO failed to rebut

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SMT. DENISHA RAJENDRA KESHWANI, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.39/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Dcit Smt. Denisha Rajendra बनाम/ Central Circle-1(1) Keshwani V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 009 44, Asopalav Bungalows Nr.Muktidham Temple Thaltej, Ahmedabad – 380 054 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Ahzpk 0889 K (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 22.01.2021, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Wherein The Cit(A) Has Deleted The Addition Of Rs.1,17,78,534/- Made Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 1(1), Dcit Vs. Smt. Denisha Rajendra Keshwani Asst. Year : 2015-16

264 of 2024. The AR argued that when purchase by the counter party is treated as genuine, how sale can be treated as bogus. The AR, while relying on the order of CIT(A), stated that the CIT(A) in his order (para 6.1) has reproduced the details of purchase and sale as submitted by the assessee with the supporting

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

bogus purchases made by various beneficiaries from Hawala dealers. Assessee was one of them. As per this information, he had made purchases worth Rs. 3.21 crores (rounded off) from such Hawala dealers during the financial year 2010-11. According to the Assessing Officer, this information 'needed deep verification'. ITA Nos. 1074/Ahd/2016 & 273/Ahd/2017 [Gold Finch Jewellery Ltd.] A.Ys

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

bogus purchases made by various beneficiaries from Hawala dealers. Assessee was one of them. As per this information, he had made purchases worth Rs. 3.21 crores (rounded off) from such Hawala dealers during the financial year 2010-11. According to the Assessing Officer, this information 'needed deep verification'. ITA Nos. 1074/Ahd/2016 & 273/Ahd/2017 [Gold Finch Jewellery Ltd.] A.Ys

KUSUMBEN RAJENDRAKUMAR SONI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

Section 270A for\nalleged misreporting of income is unwarranted, as\nthe\nappellant has disclosed all details and cooperated with the\nproceedings in good faith.\"\n3.\nThe solitary issue in the present appeal pertains to addition\nmade to the income of the assessee by treating the entire purchases\nas non-genuine amounting to Rs.5,21,27,915/-. The solitary\ncontention

AANYA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rifaur Rahman

purchased and where such items were accounted for in books had not been explained by Vitragbhai D. Dharu. This clearly proves that there was no sale/purchase transaction between them and cash was deposited and rotated to the books of the assessee. Therefore, creditworthiness of the depositor is treated as unexplained in absence of evidence supporting above mentioned transaction

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. M/S. AARTI CATALYST SOLUTION PVT. LTD, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

purchased and it is proved beyond doubt with the support of customs documents. On taking holistic view of A.O.'s arguments; it is apparent that he had relied more on conjectures than facts. Although his arguments have some merits but they are equally rebuttable with other arguments put up by appellant. The mere fact that the appellant had paid more

NRUPAL NARESHCHANDRA RAJA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

264 (Indore ITAT)held that Commissioner before holding order of Assessing Officer as erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue should have to conduct necessary enquiries or verification in order to show that findings given by Assessing Officer are unsustainable in law. The Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT has dealt with Explanation 2 as inserted by the Finance