PATEL KENWOOD PRIVATE LIMITED,ANKLESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

purchase of goods from M/s.Laxmi Enterprise as bogus. Thus the Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is hereby allowed. 11. The second ground namely rent paid to the furnished residential accommodation. The Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to 50% is on adhoc basis. There are various factors in valuing rent of a property namely the location, facilities like Garden

PATEL KENWOOD PRIVATE LIMITED,ANKLESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

purchase of goods from M/s.Laxmi Enterprise as bogus. Thus the Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is hereby allowed. 11. The second ground namely rent paid to the furnished residential accommodation. The Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to 50% is on adhoc basis. There are various factors in valuing rent of a property namely the location, facilities like Garden

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AWAS DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 368/Ahd/2020 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T, M/S Awas Developers, Central Circle-1(4), Vs. “Agam Buglows” Ahmedabad. Opp. Subhash Society, Sanand-Kalol Road, Ahmedabad.

purchaser to whom the sales of shops were effected. Onus heavily lay on the revenue to prove with corroborative evidence that the entries in the seized diary actually represented the sales made by the assessee. Such onus had not been discharged by the revenue. Mere entries in the seized material were not sufficient to prove that the assessee had indulged

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. VISHAL EXPORTS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-2016 The Dcit, Cir.4(1)(2) Vishal Exports Overseas P.Ltd. Polytechnic Vs. 301, Sheetal Complex Ahmedabad. Mayur Colony Mithakali, Ahmedabad Pan : Aaacv 2354 D (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Vivek Chavda, Ar Assessee By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/08/2025

purchase, sale, job work, or expenses had been found to be bogus or non-genuine. The AO had not invoked the provisions 6 of section 40A

THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE, MEHSANA vs. SHRI UMESH VADILAL KHAMAR, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

purchases were found to be genuine. We uphold the decision of the Ld.CIT(A). Thus, the ground raised by Revenue is dismissed. On Ground No.3 of the Revenue 9. The AO disallowed Rs.2,21,48,539/- under Section 40A(3) of the Act for cash payments exceeding Rs.20,000/-. The assessee argued that the payments were made to farmers

THE ACIT., PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. SHIV REFOILS AND CAKES, CHANSAMA, PATAN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1672/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Acit Shiv Refoils & Cakes बनाम/ Patan Circle, Plot No.2 Gidc Estate V/S. Patan – 384 265 Chanasma, Patan

bogus. 9.1. In light of the facts and evidence, we find no merit in the Revenue's contention. The partners' identity and the genuineness of the transactions have been established, and the capital was introduced through banking channels. The CIT(A) has rightly applied judicial precedents and allowed the additional evidence. The mere non-filing of returns by the partners

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RAJESHKUMAR RAMESHCHANDRA SHAH, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

bogus sales and there is either no corresponding stock with the appellant or there were no such purchases against these sales. 5.3.13 The Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) has held that where the cash deposited was out of the books of account & cash book and where such books

PARAG DAVE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1) (PREVIOUSLY CIRCLE-3(3)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Makarand V. Mahadeokarassessment Year 2016-17

40A to an employee engaged in such scientific research or on the purchase of materials used in such scientific research, the aggregate of the expenditure so laid out or expended within the three years immediately preceding the commencement of the business shall to the extent it is certified by the prescribed authority (See rule 6(1). The prescribed authority under

SHAILESH K PATEL-HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 288/Ahd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) िनधा"रण वष" Shailesh K. Patel Huf The Income Tax Officer बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Ward – 3(3)(5), Vs. Advocate Ahmedabad 512, Time Square – I, Op. Ram Baug Bungalow, Thaltej Shilaj Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aalhs9548E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Ketan Shah & Shri Aman Shah, अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : A.Rs. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. Dr 04/06/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 18/06/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 24.01.2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 40A(3) of the Act, what prevented the assessee to deposit the available cash in the bank account and make the single payment through cheque, was also not explained by the assessee. The conduct of the ITA No. 288/Ahd/2019 (Shailesh K Patel – HUF vs. ITO) A.Y.– 2015-16 - 13 – assessee is not only inexplicable but it raises serious doubt

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

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

bogus. He has\nalso not conducted any verification or inquiry with customers, nor has he\ndisproved the inventory or purchase records. Merely relying on the\ncomparative analysis of deposits before and during the demonetization period\nis not sufficient to treat the cash as unexplained, particularly when the source\nof such cash is duly recorded in the books. Therefore, considering

THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADINATH ORNAMENTS PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bogus cash sales, allegedly made in the days or weeks preceding\ndemonetisation; Cash advances or loans from untraceable persons;\nSuppressed or back-dated entries in books to justify sudden cash availability;\nshowing recycling of earlier bank withdrawals, with no credible explanation\nas to how the funds were kept in custody for several months. In the present\ncase, the assessee claimed

DIY FURNITURES PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18. I.T.A No. 909/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 2 DIY Furnitures Pvt. Ltd. . vs. ITO 2. Today is the sixth time of hearing of the appeal, however none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Earlier Shri Paras