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 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

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)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2018-19. Since common issue is involved in both the appeals, the same are disposed of by this common order. I.T.A Nos. 60 & 61/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No 2 Patel Kenwood

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)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2018-19. Since common issue is involved in both the appeals, the same are disposed of by this common order. I.T.A Nos. 60 & 61/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No 2 Patel Kenwood

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(2)(b) or Explanation 1 to section 37 of the Act, and the audited books of account had not been rejected under section 145(3

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

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

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

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

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

3)\nof the Act, nor had the Assessing Officer pointed out any defect in the\npurchase, sales, stock, or other supporting records. In fact, the purchase\nrecords, stock registers, cash book, and VAT returns have all been placed on\nrecord by the assessee and no specific infirmity has been pointed out by Tax\nAuthorities. The AO has also accepted

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:

3 – for complete scrutiny under CASS and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. In the course of assessment, the AO noticed that the assessee had claimed LTCG of Rs.73,29,100/- as exempt under Section 10(38) of the Act, which was derived on sale of shares of Lifeline Drugs & Pharma Ltd. (LDPL

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

3 relates to deletion of Addition of Rs. 70,47,000/- for Capital Introduced by Partners 6. The AO made an addition of Rs.6,08,44,207/- under section 68 of the Act, which included the disputed capital introduction of Rs.70,47,000/-. The additions included Rs.19,82,000/- introduced by Smt. Sharmilaben I. Patel The ACIT vs. Shiv Refoils

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