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

undisclosed income or any amount of tax and surcharge paid thereon, to re- open any assessment or reassessment made under the Income-tax Act or the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, or to claim any set-off or relief in any appeal, reference or other proceeding in relation to any such assessment or reassessment. (c) The contents of the declaration shall

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

undisclosed income or any amount of tax and surcharge paid thereon, to re- open any assessment or reassessment made under the Income-tax Act or the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, or to claim any set-off or relief in any appeal, reference or other proceeding in relation to any such assessment or reassessment. (c) The contents of the declaration shall

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

undisclosed income or any amount of tax and surcharge paid thereon, to re- open any assessment or reassessment made under the Income-tax Act or the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, or to claim any set-off or relief in any appeal, reference or other proceeding in relation to any such assessment or reassessment. (c) The contents of the declaration shall

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

undisclosed income or any amount of tax and surcharge paid thereon, to re- open any assessment or reassessment made under the Income-tax Act or the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, or to claim any set-off or relief in any appeal, reference or other proceeding in relation to any such assessment or reassessment. (c) The contents of the declaration shall

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

Appeals are allowed

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

undisclosed income or any amount of tax and surcharge paid thereon, to re- open any assessment or reassessment made under the Income-tax Act or the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, or to claim any set-off or relief in any appeal, reference or other proceeding in relation to any such assessment or reassessment. (c) The contents of the declaration shall

TAHOORA PROTEINS,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 NOW WARD-1, GODHRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

depreciation claimed by the assessee. The assessee replied that the amount of Rs. 1.25 crores as additional business income is nothing but the undisclosed

SHRI PRAVINCHANDRA R PATEL,VADODARA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

depreciation. As such, none of the expenses was incurred by the assessee which was not eligible for deduction. Accordingly, we are of the view that the income should be determined keeping the principles of telescoping. The assessee has worked out the income of Rs.8,40,140.00 based on the principles of telescoping which has been reproduced in the order

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

depreciation. As such, none of the expenses was incurred by the assessee which was not eligible for deduction. Accordingly, we are of the view that the income should be determined keeping the principles of telescoping. The assessee has worked out the income of Rs.8,40,140.00 based on the principles of telescoping which has been reproduced in the order

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

depreciation. As such, none of the expenses was incurred by the assessee which was not eligible for deduction. Accordingly, we are of the view that the income should be determined keeping the principles of telescoping. The assessee has worked out the income of Rs.8,40,140.00 based on the principles of telescoping which has been reproduced in the order

SAHEBSINGH BINDRASINGH SENGAR HUF,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(4),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1026/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11) Sahebsingh Bindrasingh The Ito बनाम/ Sengar Huf Ward-4(2)(4) Vs. 1361, Moti Vasan Sheri Ahmedabad Joshi No Khancho Saraspur Ahmedabad-380 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakhs 0022 G .. (""यथ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.Dr

income from undisclosed sources. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming disallowance out of depreciation

TECHNODOT ENGINEERS PVT. LTD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokari.T(Ss).A. Nos.147&148/Ahd/2019 (A.Ys.: 2005-06 & 2006-07) Smt. Neelu Sanjay Gupta, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of L/H. Of Late Shri Sanjay Gupta Income Tax, B-202, Dhananjay Tower, Central Circle-2(2), Anand Nagar Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380015 [Pan No.Adypg0351K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T(Ss).A. Nos.21 To 23/Ahd/2020 & 15/Ahd/2022 & Ita No. 93/Ahd/2020) (A.Ys.: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2006-07 & 2010-11 To 2011-12) M/S. Technodot Engineers Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O. Cambay Hotel & Resorts, Income Tax, Plot No. 22, 23, 24 Gidc, Central Circle-2(2), Sector-25, Gandhinagar-382010 Ahmedabad [Pan No.Aabct5392A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

undisclosed income, further increasing the income to be assessed. One of the significant additions was related to unexplained credits, which totalled Rs. 98,50,000/-. These credits could not be substantiated during the assessment, and as a result, they were added to the total income. Furthermore, unrecorded investment was found to be Rs. 2,31,055/-. This amount represented investments

M/S. BODAL CHEMICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

undisclosed income of the block period u/s 158BB was to be made on the basis of evidence found as a result of search of requisition of books of accounts, there is no such stipulation in sec. 153A and sec. 153BI specifically states that the provisions of Chapter-XIV-B, under which sec. 158BB falls would not be applied where

SHRI UMANG HIRALAL THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, 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

depreciation @ 25%. 24.3 The ld. DR was unable to distinguish the said decision before us. In view of the same, we agree with the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the disallowance of depreciation on electrical installations and fittings in hotel buildings of the assessee by applying rate of 15% as against 25% applied by the assessee treating

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

depreciation @ 25%. 24.3 The ld. DR was unable to distinguish the said decision before us. In view of the same, we agree with the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the disallowance of depreciation on electrical installations and fittings in hotel buildings of the assessee by applying rate of 15% as against 25% applied by the assessee treating

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHREYASI DHARMEN SUTARIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 797/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.173/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., Shreyasi Dharmen Sutaria, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. 2Nd Address: 8, Amrashagun Bunglows, Nr. Hathisingh Park, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Awops1881R

undisclosed income. Comments: It is noticed that assessing officer had reopened the case after duly recording reasons. On verification of the reasons recorded, it is clearly evident that the assessing officer had duly applied his mind, made belief on the base of the fact available on record. It is also noticed that during assessment proceeding u/s 153A

ITO, WARD-1(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CRYSTAL CERAMICS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS CRYSTAL GLAZE), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

undisclosed income.” ITA Nos.693 & 694/Ahd/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Page 2 of 3 3. In Assessment Year 2007-08, the assessment was finalised under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 30.03.2009 declaring total income at nil after allowing set off of carried forward depreciation

ITO, WARD-1(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CRYSTAL CERAMICS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS CRYSTAL GLAZE), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

undisclosed income.” ITA Nos.693 & 694/Ahd/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Page 2 of 3 3. In Assessment Year 2007-08, the assessment was finalised under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 30.03.2009 declaring total income at nil after allowing set off of carried forward depreciation

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)

undisclosed income during search - Whether Assessing Officer could not proceed on presumption under section 132(4) and there must be something more than bare suspicion to support assessment or addition - Held, yes - Whether Tribunal had rightly reduced additions made by Assessing Officer - Held, yes [Paras 5 and 6][In favour of assessee] 12.2. Respectfully following the above judicial precedent