ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby\nallowed

69A of the Act on account of bogus loan taken from\nDishman Group holding the same as the unaccounted income of the assessee,\nas against the observation made in the reasons recorded of bogus expenses of\ncommission paid.\n5 The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition so made by AO. The assessee\nhas, thus, come in appeal before

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

69A of the Act on account of bogus loan taken from Dishman Group holding the same as the unaccounted income of the assessee, as against the observation made in the reasons recorded of bogus expenses of commission paid. 5 The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition so made by AO. The assessee has, thus, come in appeal before

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

69A of the Act on account of bogus loan taken from Dishman Group holding the same as the unaccounted income of the assessee, as against the observation made in the reasons recorded of bogus expenses of commission paid. 5 The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition so made by AO. The assessee has, thus, come in appeal before

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

69A of the Act on account of bogus loan taken from Dishman Group holding the same as the unaccounted income of the assessee, as against the observation made in the reasons recorded of bogus expenses of commission paid. 5 The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition so made by AO. The assessee has, thus, come in appeal before

MANISH RANJAN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MONARCH NETWORTH CAPITAL LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue for A.Y. 2015–16 is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

bogus LTCG and STCG/exempt income whereas the appellant has offered gain/loss arising from share transactions as "Income from business or profession". The Ld CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that Assessing Officer has not applied his mind before recording reasons for re-opening the case u/s 148 of the Act and his satisfaction is based upon incorrect facts

M/S. PANCHMAHAL STEEL LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the assessment years in question

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

bogus, then, in our view additions proposed to be made under Section 147 of the Act and 263 of the Act have no basis which the same can be sustained. 9. This brings us to the next question that when the order was passed by PCIT under Section 263 of the Act on 24.03.2021, then at the relevant time CESTAT

M/S. PANCHMAHAL STEEL LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the assessment years in question

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

bogus, then, in our view additions proposed to be made under Section 147 of the Act and 263 of the Act have no basis which the same can be sustained. 9. This brings us to the next question that when the order was passed by PCIT under Section 263 of the Act on 24.03.2021, then at the relevant time CESTAT

AMEE GOVINDBHAI PATEL,MEHSANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD-1,, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is, therefore, allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

69A of the Act being unaccounted investment and hence, addition is required to be deleted. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the argument of the Appellant to provide opportunity of cross examination in as much as the cross examination is a legal right

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD, PANJARAPOLE, AHMEDABAD vs. VIKASH MORE, BODAKDEV, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

purchase and sale is bogus. The order of the SEBI related to the scrip of M/s Kushal Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. will not be the sole and whole criteria for making addition under Section 69A

ARVIND AMBALAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1) (OLD WARD-5(2)(2)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2017-18

69A of the Act and taxed the same under Section 115BBE of the Act at the rate of 60%. The Assessing Officer also made addition on account of bogus Sundry Creditors under Section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.33,32,967/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before

NITABEN GIRISHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, while upholding the validity of reopening, we set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) on merits and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication in accordance with law

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Nitaben Girishbhai Patel The Ito, Ward-3(3)(2) 33/B, Swi Park, Private Plot Vejalpur Madhuvrund Society Ahmedabad. Ghatlodiya, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aappp 5738 F (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Assessee By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

bogus share transactions. However, in the reassessment order, the AO has not made any addition on that footing but has instead made addition of Rs.13,78,078/- u/s 69A towards unexplained investment. Thus, the addition ultimately made has no nexus with the reasons recorded, rendering the reassessment proceedings bad in law. Reliance was placed on various judicial pronouncements including

HIMANSHU DAKSHESHKUMAR KATWALA,KHAMBHAT ANAND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), PETLAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

69A despite the fact that no money, cash, bullion, jewellery or valuable article was found in possession of the appellant. 6. The addition is unsustainable as it is made without any incriminating material, documentary evidence, statement, bank trail or seized material linking the appellant with any alleged accommodation entry. 7. The authorities erred in relying upon alleged third party material

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RAMESHKUMAR MELAPCHAND SHAH, AHMEDABAD

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

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

bogus which the AO failed to do so though he alleges that those purchases were not genuine. It amounts to only assumption by the AO against the facts on records gathered based on his own enquiries during the assessment proceedings. So, it is evident that purchase has happened during the period as mentioned by the AO and it is beyond

RAMESHKUMAR MELAPCHAND SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

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

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

bogus which the AO failed to do so though he alleges that those purchases were not genuine. It amounts to only assumption by the AO against the facts on records gathered based on his own enquiries during the assessment proceedings. So, it is evident that purchase has happened during the period as mentioned by the AO and it is beyond

SHALIN RAJENDRAKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

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

purchaser of smaller denominations, made the additions which is not sustainable in law. 7.1. Further the sales are found recorded in the sales register, stock register, cash book, etc. The impugned sum also formed part of the overall sales credited in the Profit & Loss account and offered for taxation under the head “Business Income”. Perusal of the stock register along

ACIT CC 2(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. AISHA DHIRAJ GOGIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result: 50. To summarize the final outcome:

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha["ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" एवं "ी नरे" साद िस!ा, लेखा सद" के सम#।]

69A on account of the on-money received in "Earth Erita" property sale transaction. 3. Aggrieved by the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the majority of the additions made by the AO, the Revenue has come up in appeals before this Tribunal, whereas, the assessees, in turn, have filed cross-objections, primarily on the legal ground challenging

BHANU JEWELLERS ART,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

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

purchaser of smaller denominations, made the additions which is not sustainable in law. 7.1. Further the sales are found recorded in the sales register, stock register, cash book, etc. The impugned sum also formed part of the overall sales credited in the Profit & Loss account and offered for taxation under the head “Business Income”. Perusal of the stock register along

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

Section 69A pre supposes a credit of the aforesaid amount in the 'bank account' held for the previous year. This is the settled position of law that a statutory provision has to be strictly construed and interpreted as per its plain literal interpretation, and no word howsoever meaningful it may so appear can be allowed to be read into