DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA vs. NEOTECH EDUCATION FOUNDATION, VADODARA

section 69C of the Act is that the assessee failed to justify the source of the expenses. However in the given case, the source of the expenses is not in dispute. Accordingly, we are of the view that only option available work out the income from the unrecorded transactions in the given facts and circumstances is to apply the concept

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE) -1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation to 15%, whereas Ld. CIT(Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee on this issue. 16. On going through the facts of the instant case, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) so as to call for any interference. 17. In the result, ground number 3 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed. Assessment year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation to 15%, whereas Ld. CIT(Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee on this issue. 16. On going through the facts of the instant case, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) so as to call for any interference. 17. In the result, ground number 3 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed. Assessment year

MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation to 15%, whereas Ld. CIT(Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee on this issue. 16. On going through the facts of the instant case, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) so as to call for any interference. 17. In the result, ground number 3 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed. Assessment year

SHRI TEJAS ARVINDBHAI RAVAL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (OSD) WARD-7(1), NOW WARD-3(3)(5),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 336/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Shri Tejas Arvindbhai Raval, Ito(Osd), बनाम/ 803, Anand Hari Tower, Ward – 7(1), Vs. Opp. Chanakya Tower Ahmedabad. Bodakdev, Ahmedabad – 380 015. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afupr 7933 J .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri S.N. Divatia, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri N. J. Vyas, Sr. D.R.

section it must be conclusively established by evidence or material to prove that the amount spent is an expenditure and the expenditure is incurred by the assessee only and the same is not deductible while computing the income under any head under the Act. Thus, the primary onus is on the revenue.” As the activity of the assessee with Reliance

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)

69C, read with section 132, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained expenditure (Addition on basis of retracted statement) - Assessment years 1990-91 to 1999-2000 - A search operation was carried out at premises of assessee - Assessee retracted from disclosure made in statement under section 132(4) - Retraction was not accepted by Revenue - Assessing Officer made additions of undisclosed income

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)

69C, read with section 132, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained expenditure (Addition on basis of retracted statement) - Assessment years 1990-91 to 1999-2000 - A search operation was carried out at premises of assessee - Assessee retracted from disclosure made in statement under section 132(4) - Retraction was not accepted by Revenue - Assessing Officer made additions of undisclosed income

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)

69C, read with section 132, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained expenditure (Addition on basis of retracted statement) - Assessment years 1990-91 to 1999-2000 - A search operation was carried out at premises of assessee - Assessee retracted from disclosure made in statement under section 132(4) - Retraction was not accepted by Revenue - Assessing Officer made additions of undisclosed income

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)

69C, read with section 132, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained expenditure (Addition on basis of retracted statement) - Assessment years 1990-91 to 1999-2000 - A search operation was carried out at premises of assessee - Assessee retracted from disclosure made in statement under section 132(4) - Retraction was not accepted by Revenue - Assessing Officer made additions of undisclosed income

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)

69C, read with section 132, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained expenditure (Addition on basis of retracted statement) - Assessment years 1990-91 to 1999-2000 - A search operation was carried out at premises of assessee - Assessee retracted from disclosure made in statement under section 132(4) - Retraction was not accepted by Revenue - Assessing Officer made additions of undisclosed income

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)

69C, read with section 132, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained expenditure (Addition on basis of retracted statement) - Assessment years 1990-91 to 1999-2000 - A search operation was carried out at premises of assessee - Assessee retracted from disclosure made in statement under section 132(4) - Retraction was not accepted by Revenue - Assessing Officer made additions of undisclosed income

SHRI BIPINKUMAR HIRALAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of the assessee challenging the re-assessment proceedings is allowed

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year)." On going through the changes, quoted above, made to Section 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, re-opening

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-8(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation disallowed by AO of Rs. 6,11,31,472/- and further directing AO to disallow amount in excess of Rs. 3,67,46,232/- after verification.” 22. At the outset, the Ld. AR for the assessee before us submitted that the additional ground raised vide letter dated 06.01.2020 is legal in nature, and all the relevant details in respect

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(OSD), CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation disallowed by AO of Rs. 6,11,31,472/- and further directing AO to disallow amount in excess of Rs. 3,67,46,232/- after verification.” 22. At the outset, the Ld. AR for the assessee before us submitted that the additional ground raised vide letter dated 06.01.2020 is legal in nature, and all the relevant details in respect

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT(OSD)CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation disallowed by AO of Rs. 6,11,31,472/- and further directing AO to disallow amount in excess of Rs. 3,67,46,232/- after verification.” 22. At the outset, the Ld. AR for the assessee before us submitted that the additional ground raised vide letter dated 06.01.2020 is legal in nature, and all the relevant details in respect

THE ACIT,(OSD) CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation disallowed by AO of Rs. 6,11,31,472/- and further directing AO to disallow amount in excess of Rs. 3,67,46,232/- after verification.” 22. At the outset, the Ld. AR for the assessee before us submitted that the additional ground raised vide letter dated 06.01.2020 is legal in nature, and all the relevant details in respect

M/S. NEOTECH EDUCATION FOUNDATION,VADODARA vs. THE JT.CIT, CENTRAL RANGE, VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

depreciation TOTAL 4,06,21,446 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the Tribunal vide order dated 13.01.2022 granted relief of Rs.3,96,31,306/- and sustained the addition of Rs.9,90,140/-. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has not made any concealment of income or furnished any inaccurate particulars of income as envisaged under Section

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA vs. M/S. NEOTECH EDUCATION FOUNDATION, VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

depreciation TOTAL 4,06,21,446 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the Tribunal vide order dated 13.01.2022 granted relief of Rs.3,96,31,306/- and sustained the addition of Rs.9,90,140/-. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has not made any concealment of income or furnished any inaccurate particulars of income as envisaged under Section