THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRENA S SUTARIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 796/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.172/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., Shrena S. Sutaria, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 8, Amrashagun Bunglows, Ahmedabad. Nr. Hathisingh Park, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Asqps7606E

cash deposit of ₹ 1,66,00,000/- has escaped assessment in respect of which the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. Therefore, the AO initiated the proceedings under section 147 of the Act by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act. 3.4 However, the assessee before the AO has challenged

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA -HUF, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 795/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.169/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., Dharmenbhai M. Sutaria, Huf Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aafhd1653K

cash deposit of Rs.1,53,25,000/- in the City Union Bank (Account No.463205, Navrangpura Branch) and Rs.20,00,000/- in the HDFC Bank Account. Accordingly, the case was reopened and the proceedings for re-assessment were commenced. The reasons for reopening u/s. 148 were duly provided to the assessee, opportunity under natural justice was given

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. STHAPATYA SHILP CONSTRUCTION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 907/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.170/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Sthapatya Shilp Construction, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 2, Abhiraj Complex, Ahmedabad. 68-B, Swastic Society, Ahmedabad. Pan: Abffs2922P

cash deposit of ₹ 1,14,60,000/- has escaped assessment in respect of which the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. Thus, the AO initiated the proceedings under section 147 of the Act by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act. 4.3 However, the assessee before the AO has challenged

THE ITO WARD-5(3)(1) (PREVIOUSLY THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2)), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. INDUMATIBEN RUGNATH TANNA, AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

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

cash as well as cheque deposits in various bank account. 4. Inflating the Expenditure: The AO has referred to page No. 216 of Annexure A/41 of impounded material which reflects Profit & Loss Account for AY 2013-14 which shows that income of assessee is Rs.21.90 lacs on total income of Rs.38.18 lacs whereas page No. 205 of Annexure A/41 shows

SMT. RITABEN SAKETKUMAR TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

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

cash as well as cheque deposits in various bank account. 4. Inflating the Expenditure: The AO has referred to page No. 216 of Annexure A/41 of impounded material which reflects Profit & Loss Account for AY 2013-14 which shows that income of assessee is Rs.21.90 lacs on total income of Rs.38.18 lacs whereas page No. 205 of Annexure A/41 shows

SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. INDUMATIBEN RUGNATH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

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

cash as well as cheque deposits in various bank account. 4. Inflating the Expenditure: The AO has referred to page No. 216 of Annexure A/41 of impounded material which reflects Profit & Loss Account for AY 2013-14 which shows that income of assessee is Rs.21.90 lacs on total income of Rs.38.18 lacs whereas page No. 205 of Annexure A/41 shows

SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

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

cash as well as cheque deposits in various bank account. 4. Inflating the Expenditure: The AO has referred to page No. 216 of Annexure A/41 of impounded material which reflects Profit & Loss Account for AY 2013-14 which shows that income of assessee is Rs.21.90 lacs on total income of Rs.38.18 lacs whereas page No. 205 of Annexure A/41 shows

SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

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

cash as well as cheque deposits in various bank account. 4. Inflating the Expenditure: The AO has referred to page No. 216 of Annexure A/41 of impounded material which reflects Profit & Loss Account for AY 2013-14 which shows that income of assessee is Rs.21.90 lacs on total income of Rs.38.18 lacs whereas page No. 205 of Annexure A/41 shows

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SMT. RITABEN SAKETKUMAR TANNA, AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

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

cash as well as cheque deposits in various bank account. 4. Inflating the Expenditure: The AO has referred to page No. 216 of Annexure A/41 of impounded material which reflects Profit & Loss Account for AY 2013-14 which shows that income of assessee is Rs.21.90 lacs on total income of Rs.38.18 lacs whereas page No. 205 of Annexure A/41 shows

SHRI VISHAL DILIP PALANY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(4),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Vishal Dilip Palani, Income Tax Officer, C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Advocate, Vs Ward 9(4), 903, Sapphire Complex, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Alopp 0931 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/10/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xv, Ahmedabad [“Cit(A) In Short]” Dated 04.02.2013. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 357 Days On The Part Of The Assessee In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Giving Details Of The Deteriorating Health Of His Father As Well As Financial Problems Faced During The Relevant Period Which Resulted In The Said Delay. Keeping In View The Same, We Are Satisfied That There Was A Sufficient Cause For The Delay Of 357 Days On The Part Of The Assessee In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Learned Departmental Representative Has Not Raised Any Objection In This Regard. We, Therefore, Shri Vishal Dilip Palani Vs. Ito Ay : 2009-10 2

deposits found to be made in the bank account of the assessee to the extent of Rs.15,93,081/- by treating the same as unexplained and upholding the same, we dismiss the ground No.2 of the assessee’s appeal. 7. As regards the issue involved in Ground No.3, it is observed that the addition of Rs.8,55,310/- made

ITO, WARD-2(2)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. JASMIN JAYENDRABHAI THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

deposited in cash; rather the Assessing Officer has made some other additions. Let us evaluate the position of law propounded by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and other Hon’ble High Courts on this issue. In the case of Mohmed Juned ITA Nos. 1330 & 1331 Ahd 2019 & CO Nos. 184 & 185 Ahd 2019 Assessee - Jasmin Jayendrabhai Thakkar

ITO, WARD-2(2)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. JASMIN JAYENDRABHAI THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

deposited in cash; rather the Assessing Officer has made some other additions. Let us evaluate the position of law propounded by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and other Hon’ble High Courts on this issue. In the case of Mohmed Juned ITA Nos. 1330 & 1331 Ahd 2019 & CO Nos. 184 & 185 Ahd 2019 Assessee - Jasmin Jayendrabhai Thakkar

ALDIABLOS INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 353, 354, 355, 356 & 357/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

cash deposit in bank as per para -5 of assessment order Rs.1,58,92,277/- (b). Disallowance of 30% expenses of Rs.2,05,90,256/- as per para 6 of assessment order (c). Addition of liabilities as per para-7 of assessment order Rs.4,00,133/- (d). Depreciation

ALDIABLOS INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

cash deposit in bank as per para -5 of assessment\norder Rs.1,58,92,277/-\n(b). Disallowance of 30% expenses of Rs.2,05,90,256/- as per para 6 of\nassessment order\n(c). Addition of liabilities as per para-7 of assessment order Rs.4,00,133/-\n(d). Depreciation

ALDIABLOS INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

cash deposit in bank as per para -5 of assessment\norder Rs.1,58,92,277/-\n(b). Disallowance of 30% expenses of Rs.2,05,90,256/- as per para 6 of\nassessment order\n(c). Addition of liabilities as per para-7 of assessment order Rs.4,00,133/-\n(d). Depreciation

ALDIABLOS INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

cash deposit in bank as per para -5 of assessment\norder Rs.1,58,92,277/-\n(b). Disallowance of 30% expenses of Rs.2,05,90,256/- as per para 6 of\nassessment order\n(c). Addition of liabilities as per para-7 of assessment order Rs.4,00,133/-\n(d). Depreciation

ALDIABLOS INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

cash deposit in bank as per para -5 of assessment\norder Rs.1,58,92,277/-\n(b). Disallowance of 30% expenses of Rs.2,05,90,256/- as per para 6 of\nassessment order\n(c). Addition of liabilities as per para-7 of assessment order Rs.4,00,133/-\n(d). Depreciation

DHARMIN N THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1378/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Dharmin N. Thakkar, I.T.O., 203, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Ward-4(2)(1), Blossom Luxuria, Ahmedabad. Nr. Shukan Mall Cross Road, Science City Road, Ahmedabad.

deposit of cash for which the case was selected under scrutiny. Accordingly, we hold that the Assessing Officer has exceeded his jurisdiction by treating the closing cash in hand as income from undisclosed sources which was not mandated under the ‘’Limited Scrutiny” notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act. 9.2 The Ld. DR before us has not brought