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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is Dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 641/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1311/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Mobile Telecommunications Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., C/O. Ambalal M. Shah & Co., Vs. Circle-2(1)(2), Chartered Accountants, Baroda. 108, Bell-E-Vista Complex, Race Course Chakli Circle, Vadodara-390007. Pan: Aaccm2659J

69C of the Act. Thus, the addition of Rs.1,63,98,689 (Rs.29,04,314/- + Rs.1,34,94,375/-) is upheld on account of bogus and unexplained purchases out of total disallowance of purchases made by AO at Rs.5,24,91,187/-. The AO is accordingly directed to delete the balance amount of disallowance out of the purchases. Ground No.5

MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS PVE. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is Dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 641/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1311/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Mobile Telecommunications Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., C/O. Ambalal M. Shah & Co., Vs. Circle-2(1)(2), Chartered Accountants, Baroda. 108, Bell-E-Vista Complex, Race Course Chakli Circle, Vadodara-390007. Pan: Aaccm2659J

69C of the Act. Thus, the addition of Rs.1,63,98,689 (Rs.29,04,314/- + Rs.1,34,94,375/-) is upheld on account of bogus and unexplained purchases out of total disallowance of purchases made by AO at Rs.5,24,91,187/-. The AO is accordingly directed to delete the balance amount of disallowance out of the purchases. Ground No.5