DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST, , AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

unexplained transaction of Rs. 89,21,987/- and added to the total income. 2.19. While assessing the income of the assessee for A.Y. 2017-18, the AO gave credit of Rs. 8,01,76,700/- in case of Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust and Rs. 8,00,00,000/- in case of Parul University relating to PMGKY

PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

unexplained transaction of Rs. 89,21,987/- and added to the total income. 2.19. While assessing the income of the assessee for A.Y. 2017-18, the AO gave credit of Rs. 8,01,76,700/- in case of Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust and Rs. 8,00,00,000/- in case of Parul University relating to PMGKY

PARUL UNIVERSITY,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT,EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

unexplained transaction of Rs. 89,21,987/- and added to the total income. 2.19. While assessing the income of the assessee for A.Y. 2017-18, the AO gave credit of Rs. 8,01,76,700/- in case of Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust and Rs. 8,00,00,000/- in case of Parul University relating to PMGKY

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

unexplained transaction of Rs. 89,21,987/- and added to the total income. 2.19. While assessing the income of the assessee for A.Y. 2017-18, the AO gave credit of Rs. 8,01,76,700/- in case of Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust and Rs. 8,00,00,000/- in case of Parul University relating to PMGKY

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

investments, unexplained expenditure and income from other sources raised in the respective grounds of appeal. 8. In respect of the separate appeal against penalty levied under section 271(1)(c), the CIT(Appeals) noted that the penalty was based entirely on the additions made in the assessment order dated 24.03.2023. Since the quantum appeal itself had been dismissed as time

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

investments, unexplained expenditure and income from other sources raised in the respective grounds of appeal. 8. In respect of the separate appeal against penalty levied under section 271(1)(c), the CIT(Appeals) noted that the penalty was based entirely on the additions made in the assessment order dated 24.03.2023. Since the quantum appeal itself had been dismissed as time

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

investments, unexplained expenditure and income from other sources raised in the respective grounds of appeal. 8. In respect of the separate appeal against penalty levied under section 271(1)(c), the CIT(Appeals) noted that the penalty was based entirely on the additions made in the assessment order dated 24.03.2023. Since the quantum appeal itself had been dismissed as time

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

investments, unexplained expenditure and income from other sources raised in the respective grounds of appeal. 8. In respect of the separate appeal against penalty levied under section 271(1)(c), the CIT(Appeals) noted that the penalty was based entirely on the additions made in the assessment order dated 24.03.2023. Since the quantum appeal itself had been dismissed as time

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

investments, unexplained expenditure and income from other sources raised in the respective grounds of appeal. 8. In respect of the separate appeal against penalty levied under section 271(1)(c), the CIT(Appeals) noted that the penalty was based entirely on the additions made in the assessment order dated 24.03.2023. Since the quantum appeal itself had been dismissed as time

ITO(EXEMPTIONS), VADODARA vs. MUSLIM ISLAHI JAMAT, VEJALPUR ROAD, GODHRA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2016-17

investment u/s 69 of I.T. Act, 1961.” 3. The assessee is a charitable trust and has not filed return of income. The assessee trust purchased land during the year under consideration at the market value. The Assessing Officer made addition of difference between jantry value and agreement value amounting to Rs. 79,60,000/- and treated the same as unexplained

SMT. DAXA NARESHBHAI SANTANI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(2),, AHMEDABAD

unexplained investment U/s 69 of the I. T. Act. Therefore the same is added back in total income of the assessee. 4.2 - In this regard show cause notice issued on 29.11.2011, for reasonable opportunity given to the assessee, and hearing -was fixed on 05/12/2011, but could not complied, by the A.R. of the assessee, and requested on telephone for adjournment

ITO (E) WARD 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ACHARYA SHRI VIJAY SURENDRA SURISHWARJI JAIN TATWA GYAN SHALA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

charitable trust registered under section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). For the assessment year 2018-19, the assessee did not file its return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. Based on information available on the Insight Portal, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had made time deposits aggregating to Rs.1

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA vs. M/S. SIGMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING,, VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: the Hon'ble Settlement Commission.

investing money from unaccounted sources for the purchase of property, gold and personal assets of the trustees. He, therefore, held that the entire deposits in the undisclosed bank account of the assessee was to be treated as its income amounting to Rs.25,75,620/- and added the same to the income of the assessee. Further, the AO noted that list

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SANJAY KISHANLAL BISHNOI,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

investment and added to your total income u/s. 69C of the I.T. ACT. On verification of details furnished by you during the course of assessment proceedings it is noticed that you have shown imports of 712 MT. of watermelon seeds during the F.Y. 2013-14. However during the investigations/search carried out by the DRI in your case it is revealed

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SANJAY KISHANLAL BISHNOI,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

investment and added to your total income u/s. 69C of the I.T. ACT. On verification of details furnished by you during the course of assessment proceedings it is noticed that you have shown imports of 712 MT. of watermelon seeds during the F.Y. 2013-14. However during the investigations/search carried out by the DRI in your case it is revealed

SUVIDHA EDUCATION TRUST,MEHSANA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), PALANPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2409/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Suvidha Education Trust, I.T.O,(Exemption) 7 Maheshweri Society, Vs. Palanpur. Opp. Jyoti Petrol Pump, Mehsana.

unexplained investments made by AO is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The Ld. CIT (A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not considering fully and properly the submissions made and evidence produced by the appellant with regard to the impugned addition. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred

ACIT (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. DR K R SHROFF FOUNDATION, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

charitable trust in existence since 2001 and registered under Section 12AA of the Act. The assessee had received 80,00,000 numbers of equity shares of e-Infochips Limited as corpus donation from its trustee Shri Pratul Krishnakant Shroff on 12.12.2017. Thereafter, all the shares of e-Infochips Limited, including those held by the assessee, were acquired by Arrow Electronics