DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S.DHARMEN MARBLE & STONE, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 794/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.171/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Dharmen Marble & Stone, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aabfd5172B

credited from city union bank and Prism Cement, thus the corresponding income of Rs. 1,68,970 also remain unexplained and escaped assessment. Therefore, the AO initiated the proceedings under section 147 of the Act by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act. With C.O.No.171/Ahd/2019 Asstt. Year 2010-11 5 4.3 However, the assessee before

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

credit under section 68 of the Act in the hands of the assessee. With C.O.No.169/Ahd/2019 Asstt. Year 2010-11 4 4.1 Based on the above, the AO analyzed the bank statements for the period beginning from 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2015 of different persons whose names were appearing in such excel sheet

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act in the hands of the assessee. With C.O.No.172/Ahd/2019 Asstt. Year 2010-11 4 3.2 Based on the above, the AO analyzed the bank statements for the period beginning from 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2015 of different persons whose names were appearing in such excel sheet

FIREFLY ENERGY LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 2871/Ahd/2016 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Firefly Energy Limited, Income Tax Officer, 14. Pahelgaon Bunglow, Vs. Ward-2(1)(3), Judges Bungalow Road, Ahmedabad. Vastrapura, Ahmedabad. C/O. Mehta Lodha & Co. Chartered Accountants, 105, Sakar-1, Near Gandhi Gram Rly. Station, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aabca6692E

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The Ld. AR to this effect relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of the PCIT v/s Aditya Birla reported in 178 taxman 418. 19. On the other hand, the Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 20. We have heard

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

unexplained expenses after providing adjustment of amount already recorded in the books of accounts and added separately in hands of directors. To our mind the approach adopted by the authorities below is not justifiable for the reason that it is Page : 28 Shri Pravinchandra R. Patel and Anrs Vs. DCIT, Cent.Cir.2, Vadodara ITA No.299/Ahd/2019 and Other 20 appeals settled

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

unexplained expenses after providing adjustment of amount already recorded in the books of accounts and added separately in hands of directors. To our mind the approach adopted by the authorities below is not justifiable for the reason that it is Page : 28 Shri Pravinchandra R. Patel and Anrs Vs. DCIT, Cent.Cir.2, Vadodara ITA No.299/Ahd/2019 and Other 20 appeals settled

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

unexplained expenses after providing adjustment of amount already recorded in the books of accounts and added separately in hands of directors. To our mind the approach adopted by the authorities below is not justifiable for the reason that it is Page : 28 Shri Pravinchandra R. Patel and Anrs Vs. DCIT, Cent.Cir.2, Vadodara ITA No.299/Ahd/2019 and Other 20 appeals settled

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

credit worthiness and genuineness cannot be established. However, on verification of acknowledgement, it is noticed that the party was having loss of Rs.3,75,915/-. It is very much clear that if the person is having loss in its business he will not proceed for investment in other companies. Also Shri Rupang R. Shah, Director of Dhanvidhya Impex

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

credit worthiness and genuineness cannot be established. However, on verification of acknowledgement, it is noticed that the party was having loss of Rs.3,75,915/-. It is very much clear that if the person is having loss in its business he will not proceed for investment in other companies. Also Shri Rupang R. Shah, Director of Dhanvidhya Impex

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

unexplained cash credit merely on the basis of individuals who lend fund to the directors were not able to explain the sources of funds in their hand. Therefore, we are of the view that assessee had A.Y. 2009-2010 with others 19 been able to explain the sources of credit of share capital and premium in its books of account

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

unexplained cash credit merely on the basis of individuals who lend fund to the directors were not able to explain the sources of funds in their hand. Therefore, we are of the view that assessee had A.Y. 2009-2010 with others 19 been able to explain the sources of credit of share capital and premium in its books of account

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

unexplained cash credit merely on the basis of individuals who lend fund to the directors were not able to explain the sources of funds in their hand. Therefore, we are of the view that assessee had A.Y. 2009-2010 with others 19 been able to explain the sources of credit of share capital and premium in its books of account

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD), CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

unexplained cash credit merely on the basis of individuals who lend fund to the directors were not able to explain the sources of funds in their hand. Therefore, we are of the view that assessee had A.Y. 2009-2010 with others 19 been able to explain the sources of credit of share capital and premium in its books of account

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

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

credits, respectively without considering the factual position that the assessee failed to prove identity and capacity of the depositors and genuineness of the transactions. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,23,634/- made on account of unverifiable repair expense without considering the findings of the A.O. that

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI UMANG H. THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

credits, respectively without considering the factual position that the assessee failed to prove identity and capacity of the depositors and genuineness of the transactions. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,23,634/- made on account of unverifiable repair expense without considering the findings of the A.O. that

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI UMANG H. THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

credits, respectively without considering the factual position that the assessee failed to prove identity and capacity of the depositors and genuineness of the transactions. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,23,634/- made on account of unverifiable repair expense without considering the findings of the A.O. that

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI UMANG HIRALAL THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

credits, respectively without considering the factual position that the assessee failed to prove identity and capacity of the depositors and genuineness of the transactions. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,23,634/- made on account of unverifiable repair expense without considering the findings of the A.O. that

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

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

credits, respectively without considering the factual position that the assessee failed to prove identity and capacity of the depositors and genuineness of the transactions. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,23,634/- made on account of unverifiable repair expense without considering the findings of the A.O. that