ASHAPURA STONE INDUSTRIES,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3 NOW WARD-1, ANAND

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member 1. Ita No.27/Ahd/2024 2. Ita No.28/Ahd/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 (Respectively) Ashapura Stone Industries The Income Tax Officer Nh No.8, Nr. Geb Sub-Station Vs Ward-3 (Now Ward-1) Vasad – 388 306 (Gujarat) Anand Pan: Aaufa 6762 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.T. Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Pertain To Different Assessment Years, But Involve Common Issues (Except Quantum In Appeal) & Hence Are Being Decided Together For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. The Appeals Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) - [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2012-13 & 2013-14, Both Dated 16/11/2023, Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Passed For Respective Assessment Years By Assessing Officer

section 69 of the Act, the assessee has explained the source of the investment and also recorded the purchase price of machinery in his books of accounts. Therefore, the AO was not right in making addition u/s 69 of the Act. 5.3. The Ld.Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, relied on the orders of lower authorities. He stated that

ASHAPURA STONE INDUSTRIES,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3 NOW WARD-1, ANAND

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member 1. Ita No.27/Ahd/2024 2. Ita No.28/Ahd/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 (Respectively) Ashapura Stone Industries The Income Tax Officer Nh No.8, Nr. Geb Sub-Station Vs Ward-3 (Now Ward-1) Vasad – 388 306 (Gujarat) Anand Pan: Aaufa 6762 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.T. Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Pertain To Different Assessment Years, But Involve Common Issues (Except Quantum In Appeal) & Hence Are Being Decided Together For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. The Appeals Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) - [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2012-13 & 2013-14, Both Dated 16/11/2023, Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Passed For Respective Assessment Years By Assessing Officer

section 69 of the Act, the assessee has explained the source of the investment and also recorded the purchase price of machinery in his books of accounts. Therefore, the AO was not right in making addition u/s 69 of the Act. 5.3. The Ld.Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, relied on the orders of lower authorities. He stated that

VIKRAMKUMAR KISHANLAL MEHTA,MAHISAGAR vs. THE DCIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.313/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Vikramkumar Kishanlal The Dcit बनाम/ Mehta Anand Circle V/S. C/O. Mahesh Masala Gruh Anand – 388 001 Udhyog 21, Gidc Estate Balasinor Mahisagar – 388 255 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aqhpm 9958 I (अपीलाथ)/ Appellant) (*+ यथ)/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhinal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/01/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 05/02/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-2019. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Vikramkumar Kishanlal Mehta Vs. Dcit Asst. Year : 2017-19

Section 69 as unexplained expenditure being 0.5% of Rs. 4,34,09,924 in as much as the assessee has not brought any accommodation entry as alleged by the AO in the assessment order and it is liable to be deleted.” 3. Ground Nos.1 & 2:- Vide Ground Nos.1 & 2, the assessee has contested the validity of the reopening

INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3)(1),AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. FURNISH HOME, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the asessee is allowed, whereas, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), wherein detailed submissions supported by the books of accounts, statutory returns, confirmation and other documentary evidences were filed. A remand report of the AO was sought on the same by the Ld. CIT(A) after considering which, Ld. CIT(A) deleted

purchases were bogus. No discrepancy was pointed out either in the quantitative details of stock or in the valuation of inventory. 4. Analysis and Decision: Section 69

FURNISH HOME,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1) OLD WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the asessee is allowed, whereas, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

purchases were bogus. No discrepancy was pointed out either in the quantitative details of stock or in the valuation of inventory. 4. Analysis and Decision: Section 69

TAHOORA PROTEINS,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 NOW WARD-1, GODHRA

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

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

bogus purchase or purchased of items which are different. Any discrepancies in treating stock is ‘income from business’ and taxable as ‘income from business’ only. It is most obvious that whatever found from the business premises of the assessee firm would be nothing but documents pertaining to business transaction, unless and until some contradictory evidence was found by the Survey

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD , AAYAKAR BHAVAN NEAR SACHIN TOWER ANAND NAGAR ROAD VEJALPUR AHMEDABAD vs. DHWANI ALPESH SHAH, UGANDA PARK SOC, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue for A

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

section 69 of the Act pertains to the sale of shares of Kushal Tradelink Ltd., which the Assessing Officer treated as a bogus accommodation entry arising out of penny stock manipulation. The AO relied primarily on a report of the Investigation Wing and general allegations of price rigging without bringing on record any direct nexus between the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AAYAKAR BHAVAN NEAR SACHIN TOWER ANAND NAGAR ROAD VEJALPUR AHMEDABAD vs. DHWANI ALPESH SHAH, UGANDA PARK SOC, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue for A

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

section 69 of the Act pertains to the sale of shares of Kushal Tradelink Ltd., which the Assessing Officer treated as a bogus accommodation entry arising out of penny stock manipulation. The AO relied primarily on a report of the Investigation Wing and general allegations of price rigging without bringing on record any direct nexus between the assessee

ASHAPURA STONE INDUSTRIES,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, ANAND

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, with directions as above

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-2013 Ashapura Stone Industries The Ito, Ward-1 1, Nh No.8, Vasad Vs. Anand. Nr.Geb Sub-Station Anand-388 306, Gujarat Pan : Aaufa 6762 D (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Assessee By : Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/08/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/08/2025

section 250 r.w.s. 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2012–13. 2. Brief Facts 2.1 The assessee is engaged in the business of quarrying and trading in stone products. In the course of reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 based on an information received from the office of the Dy. Director of Income-tax (Investigation

SHYAM REALTIES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRLCE-2(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1387/Ahd/2024 & 1388/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shyam Realities The Dy.Cit, बनाम/ Tejendra Arcade Circle-2(2)(1) V/S. Ganji Farak Mill Compound Ahmedabad – 380 015 Rakhiyal Cross Road Rakhiyal, Ahmedabad – 380 021 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abvfs 2603 M (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee For Assessment Years (Ays) 2017–18 & 2018–19 Are Directed Against The Respective Appellate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 27.06.2024. In The Impugned Orders, The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Disallowance Of Interest On Unsecured Loans To The Extent Of Rs.36,69,000/- For A.Y. 2017–18 & Rs.38,94,295/- For A.Y. 2018–19, As Originally Disallowed By

69,000/- interest 2. Rs. 38,94,295/- disallowance on above loans interest disallowance on earlier year loans 3. Rs. 4,70,832/- (loan balance 3. Rs. 33,90,51,606/- discrepancy) (alleged violation of section 269SS) 4. Rs. 47,16,513/- (bogus purchases

SHYAM REALTIES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRLCE-2(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1387/Ahd/2024 & 1388/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shyam Realities The Dy.Cit, बनाम/ Tejendra Arcade Circle-2(2)(1) V/S. Ganji Farak Mill Compound Ahmedabad – 380 015 Rakhiyal Cross Road Rakhiyal, Ahmedabad – 380 021 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abvfs 2603 M (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee For Assessment Years (Ays) 2017–18 & 2018–19 Are Directed Against The Respective Appellate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 27.06.2024. In The Impugned Orders, The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Disallowance Of Interest On Unsecured Loans To The Extent Of Rs.36,69,000/- For A.Y. 2017–18 & Rs.38,94,295/- For A.Y. 2018–19, As Originally Disallowed By

69,000/- interest 2. Rs. 38,94,295/- disallowance on above loans interest disallowance on earlier year loans 3. Rs. 4,70,832/- (loan balance 3. Rs. 33,90,51,606/- discrepancy) (alleged violation of section 269SS) 4. Rs. 47,16,513/- (bogus purchases

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

69 of the Act. 8. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions with the following observations:- “7.9 That a bare perusal of the aforesaid deeming sections therein reveals that an addition under the said statutory provision can be made where the assessee is found to be the owner of a bank account in which the credits were recorded

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

69 of the Act. 8. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions with the following observations:- “7.9 That a bare perusal of the aforesaid deeming sections therein reveals that an addition under the said statutory provision can be made where the assessee is found to be the owner of a bank account in which the credits were recorded

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

69 of the Act. 8. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions with the following observations:- “7.9 That a bare perusal of the aforesaid deeming sections therein reveals that an addition under the said statutory provision can be made where the assessee is found to be the owner of a bank account in which the credits were recorded

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

69 of the Act. 8. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions with the following observations:- “7.9 That a bare perusal of the aforesaid deeming sections therein reveals that an addition under the said statutory provision can be made where the assessee is found to be the owner of a bank account in which the credits were recorded

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

69 of the Act. 8. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions with the following observations:- “7.9 That a bare perusal of the aforesaid deeming sections therein reveals that an addition under the said statutory provision can be made where the assessee is found to be the owner of a bank account in which the credits were recorded

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

HIRAL TAPANKUMAR CHUDGAR,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and no income has escaped assessment. Further CIT(Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal. Therefore, Section 115BBE cannot be invoked, and its application in this case is both legally and factually incorrect. The application of Section 115BBE should be deleted. 5. The Ld. A.O. has erred in law and in facts