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

unexplained source of investment in luxuries and furniture when, as per the Assessing Officer himself, the withdrawals from the capital of the assessee to the tune of Rs.9.33 lakhs stated by him to be utilized in investment in jewellery were actually invested in jewellery and furniture. In view of the same, we do Assessee-Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar-Cross Appeals

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

investment for Rs 3,97,37,485/- has been made in hand of Shri Pravinchandra Patel and therefore, no addition in the present case is warranted. Thus the ground of appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13 and 2013-14 allowed. 27. Now we proceed to adjudicate the issue of addition of Rs. 1.35 crores made

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

investment for Rs 3,97,37,485/- has been made in hand of Shri Pravinchandra Patel and therefore, no addition in the present case is warranted. Thus the ground of appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13 and 2013-14 allowed. 27. Now we proceed to adjudicate the issue of addition of Rs. 1.35 crores made

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

investment for Rs 3,97,37,485/- has been made in hand of Shri Pravinchandra Patel and therefore, no addition in the present case is warranted. Thus the ground of appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13 and 2013-14 allowed. 27. Now we proceed to adjudicate the issue of addition of Rs. 1.35 crores made

RAHUL MANSUKHBHAI RAIYANI,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, these Tax Appeals are also allowed

Bench: The A.O. Therefore The A.O. Made Disallowance Of Depreciation Of Rs.3,04,279/-, Unexplained Investment Of Rs.1,34,03,090/- & Unexplained Cash Credit Of Rs.1,28,68,843/- & Determined The Total Income As Rs.2,74,10,818/- & Demanded Tax Thereon.

depreciation of Rs.3,04,279/-, unexplained investment of Rs.1,34,03,090/- and unexplained cash credit of Rs.1,28,68,843/- and determined

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

unexplained investment. The A.O. contended that as per Ann. A to the Tax audit report in respect of block of asset for claim of depreciation

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)

Unexplained Investment u/s 69 of Rs. 3,74,66,498: 2 The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and law in confirming the action of the Id. AO in making addition of Rs. 3,74,66,498/- in respect of cash deposited in bank account maintained with Mahila Vikas Co-operative Bank Ltd. by invoking provisions of Section

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)

Unexplained Investment u/s 69 of Rs. 3,74,66,498: 2 The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and law in confirming the action of the Id. AO in making addition of Rs. 3,74,66,498/- in respect of cash deposited in bank account maintained with Mahila Vikas Co-operative Bank Ltd. by invoking provisions of Section

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)

Unexplained Investment u/s 69 of Rs. 3,74,66,498: 2 The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and law in confirming the action of the Id. AO in making addition of Rs. 3,74,66,498/- in respect of cash deposited in bank account maintained with Mahila Vikas Co-operative Bank Ltd. by invoking provisions of Section

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)

Unexplained Investment u/s 69 of Rs. 3,74,66,498: 2 The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and law in confirming the action of the Id. AO in making addition of Rs. 3,74,66,498/- in respect of cash deposited in bank account maintained with Mahila Vikas Co-operative Bank Ltd. by invoking provisions of Section

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)

Unexplained Investment u/s 69 of Rs. 3,74,66,498: 2 The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and law in confirming the action of the Id. AO in making addition of Rs. 3,74,66,498/- in respect of cash deposited in bank account maintained with Mahila Vikas Co-operative Bank Ltd. by invoking provisions of Section

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)

Unexplained Investment u/s 69 of Rs. 3,74,66,498: 2 The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and law in confirming the action of the Id. AO in making addition of Rs. 3,74,66,498/- in respect of cash deposited in bank account maintained with Mahila Vikas Co-operative Bank Ltd. by invoking provisions of Section

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

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

unexplained investment in residential house and hotel building without considering and appreciating the valuation report of District Valuation Officer. 6. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not allowing opportunity of being heard to the Valuation Officer while deleting the addition made which were based on valuation report. 7. The CIT(A) has erred

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

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

unexplained investment in residential house and hotel building without considering and appreciating the valuation report of District Valuation Officer. 6. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not allowing opportunity of being heard to the Valuation Officer while deleting the addition made which were based on valuation report. 7. The CIT(A) has erred

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

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

unexplained investment in residential house and hotel building without considering and appreciating the valuation report of District Valuation Officer. 6. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not allowing opportunity of being heard to the Valuation Officer while deleting the addition made which were based on valuation report. 7. The CIT(A) has erred

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

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

unexplained investment in residential house and hotel building without considering and appreciating the valuation report of District Valuation Officer. 6. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not allowing opportunity of being heard to the Valuation Officer while deleting the addition made which were based on valuation report. 7. The CIT(A) has erred

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

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

unexplained investment in residential house and hotel building without considering and appreciating the valuation report of District Valuation Officer. 6. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not allowing opportunity of being heard to the Valuation Officer while deleting the addition made which were based on valuation report. 7. The CIT(A) has erred

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. GOPAL IRON & STEEL CO.(GUJ.) LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

depreciation 6,62,355/- (iii) Addition u/s. 69- Unexplained investment 58,64,847/- (iv)Addition u/s. 68- Unexplained credit 42,05,417/- (v) Out of expense

M/S. HARSIDDH QUARRY WORKS,ARAVALLI vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.103/Ahd/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 M/S. Harsiddh Quarry Works, Principal Commissioner Of At Alva (Vatrak), Vs. Income Tax, Taluka Bayad, Ahmedabad. District Aravalli, Alva(Vaarak)-383325. Pan: Aaifh0303H

unexplained investment. Accordingly, the AO is directed to add the said amount to the income assessed vide order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed on 21/12/2019. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. P.C.I.T., the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The Ld. AR, before us filed a paper book running