THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI UMANG H. THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2150/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Dharmadev House, Income-Tax, Shyamal Cross Road, Satellite, Central Circle 1(1), Ahmedabad – 380015 Ahmedabad Pan : Aavpt 8621 R आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2548/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. 305, Sahajanand Plaza, Bhatta Income-Tax, Ch Ar Rasta, Paldi, Ahmedabad Central Circle 1(1), Pan : Aavpt 8621 R Ahmedabad अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" यथ" िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, Cit-Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

purchase bill of Mahendra & Co. to be bogus, and accordingly he treated the source of investment in jewellery to be unexplained

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)

bogus accommodation entries. Purchase was made through BSE platform. Transaction was through banking channel after all, Investment in share scrip is capital in nature. If at all one has to tax then it has to be Capital Gain and not entire investment. For taxation of capital gain there has to be transfer of capital within the meaning

SADBHAV ENGINEERING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed\nand that of the Revenue are dismissed

purchase order,\netc.\nPara H of the order records that commissions were sent to\nDepartmental authorities in Mumbai to verify genuineness of the\nentities who in turn reported all of them to be bogus.\n28. Finally at Para I, the inference from all of the above is detailed\nmentioning all material found and relied upon for finding entities of\nK.C

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 And\nShri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Accountant Member\nITA Nos 43 & 44/Ahd/2025\nAssessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19\nHiral Tapankumar\nChudgar\n201/A, Premdarshan,\nBehind Jay Ambe School,\nSamasavli Raod, Vemali,\nVadodara-390008,\nGujarat\nPAN: ANCPC4000H\n(Appellant)\nIncome Tax Officer\nWard-1(3)(1),\nVs Vadodara\n(Respondent)\nAssessee Represented:\nShri Deepak Shah, A.R.\nRevenue Represented:\nShri Abhijit, Sr.D.R.\nDate of hearing\n: 18-06-

bogus\naccommodation entries. Purchase was made through BSE platform.\nTransaction was through banking channel after all, Investment in share\nscrip is capital in nature. If at all one has to tax then it has to be Capital\nGain and not entire investment. For taxation of capital gain there has to be\ntransfer of capital within the meaning

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

unexplained investment for AY 2012-13 and AY 2013-14 respectively. For AY 2013-14, the AO also disallowed the depreciation of Rs.16,25,849/- claimed by the ITA Nos.27 & 28/Ahd/2024 Ashapura Stone Industries vs. ITO Asst. Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 assessee u/s.32 of the Act as the purchase of machinery was considered as bogus

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

unexplained investment for AY 2012-13 and AY 2013-14 respectively. For AY 2013-14, the AO also disallowed the depreciation of Rs.16,25,849/- claimed by the ITA Nos.27 & 28/Ahd/2024 Ashapura Stone Industries vs. ITO Asst. Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 assessee u/s.32 of the Act as the purchase of machinery was considered as bogus

VINIT BIPINCHANDRA SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3) (PREVIOUSLY WARD-5(2)(4)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

invested in the residential property, as unexplained. The Ld. AR submitted that the evidence for purchase of gold bar was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) in the course of appeal proceedings. The matter was referred to the Assessing Officer for the remand report and on the basis of the remand report of the Assessing Officer

M/S. HARSIDDH QUARRY WORKS,ARAVALLI vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.103/Ahd/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 M/S. Harsiddh Quarry Works, Principal Commissioner Of At Alva (Vatrak), Vs. Income Tax, Taluka Bayad, Ahmedabad. District Aravalli, Alva(Vaarak)-383325. Pan: Aaifh0303H

unexplained investment. Accordingly, the AO is directed to add the said amount to the income assessed vide order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed on 21/12/2019. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. P.C.I.T., the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The Ld. AR, before us filed a paper book running

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

purchases made from other\nconcerns in other years, there were corresponding concerns in table 2 in the\nannexure to his statement. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the AO\nhas not mentioned about any entry, detail or document pointing out about the\nnature of transaction done by the assessee with the Dishman Group. The only\ninformation received

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

purchases made from other concerns in other years, there were corresponding concerns in table 2 in the annexure to his statement. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the AO has not mentioned about any entry, detail or document pointing out about the nature of transaction done by the assessee with the Dishman Group. The only information received

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

purchases made from other concerns in other years, there were corresponding concerns in table 2 in the annexure to his statement. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the AO has not mentioned about any entry, detail or document pointing out about the nature of transaction done by the assessee with the Dishman Group. The only information received

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

purchases made from other concerns in other years, there were corresponding concerns in table 2 in the annexure to his statement. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the AO has not mentioned about any entry, detail or document pointing out about the nature of transaction done by the assessee with the Dishman Group. The only information received

BHARATKUMAR GANGARAM PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2014-15

invested has been set out in the Assessment Order. The element of bogus sale of shares as unexplained and unaccounted cash receipt was not established by the Assessing Officer as the assessee has given all the details at the time of Assessment Order. The independent verification of the transactions was limited by the Assessing Officer to the extent of investigation

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

unexplained investments. It was alleged that the appellant failed to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of these payments, and accordingly, the AO treated the entire amount as not recorded or properly accounted for in the books of account, 2. Appellant's Submission: In the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted a comprehensive explanation backed by documentary evidence

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)

unexplained investments. It was alleged that the appellant failed to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of these payments, and accordingly, the AO treated the entire amount as not recorded or properly accounted for in the books of account, 2. Appellant's Submission: In the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted a comprehensive explanation backed by documentary evidence

JHAVERI TRADING AND INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2012-13

Investment Pvt. Ltd., A.Y. 2012-13 and that the funds utilized for purchase of such shares have not been accounted for in the return of income and therefore have not been offered to tax, which observation is blatantly contrary to facts and evidences available on record since the purchases are duly accounted for in books of account and evidences

ROBIN RAMAVTAR GOENKA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue IT[SS]A Nos

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

purchases, brokerage, salaries, personal expenses and jewellery were seized. Statements of key employees of the group handling cash transactions were recorded. Consequently, assessments were framed under sections 153A and 143[3] of the Act for the Asst Years 2018-19 & 2019-20 whereby Assessment Year wise unaccounted cash receipts and payments, as summarized by the AO, is given below

M/S. PUSHPAK BULLION PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Jurisdictional High Court & The Hon’Ble Gujarat High Court Dismissed The Writ Petition Filed By The Assessee Vide Judgment Dated 27-06-2016 In Sca No. 18512 Of 2015 & Upheld The Validity Of The Reassessment Notice.

Bogus Investments share Applications Total 12,61,70,000 I.T.A No. 1771/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2007-08 Page No 7 Pushpak Buillion Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 6.1. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee claimed to have genuine business transactions namely gold, buillion to the three parties out of the imported purchase of gold and have received payment by cheques as follows

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. REKHA INDRAVADAN CHOKSHI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Department’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

unexplained money of the assessee deposited by the assessee in various bank accounts during the demonetization period. Thirdly, the ld. Assessing Officer has correctly observed that no payment whatsoever was made by the assessee against this huge amount of purchase made by the assessee from M/s. Arihant Designers Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. This was clearly contradictory to normal trade practices