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)

depreciation based on the WDV of those assets whose bills are provided in the remand proceedings for earlier assessment years. Thus this Ground does not require any further adjudication. 26. Ground No.9 is disallowance of deduction claimed under Chapter VI A. Ld Counsel stated that he is NOT PRESSING this Ground, recording the same Ground No.9 is hereby dismissed

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)

depreciation based on the WDV of those assets whose bills are provided in the remand proceedings for earlier assessment years. Thus this Ground does not require any further adjudication. 26. Ground No.9 is disallowance of deduction claimed under Chapter VI A. Ld Counsel stated that he is NOT PRESSING this Ground, recording the same Ground No.9 is hereby dismissed

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)

depreciation based on the WDV of those assets whose bills are provided in the remand proceedings for earlier assessment years. Thus this Ground does not require any further adjudication. 26. Ground No.9 is disallowance of deduction claimed under Chapter VI A. Ld Counsel stated that he is NOT PRESSING this Ground, recording the same Ground No.9 is hereby dismissed

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)

depreciation based on the WDV of those assets whose bills are provided in the remand proceedings for earlier assessment years. Thus this Ground does not require any further adjudication. 26. Ground No.9 is disallowance of deduction claimed under Chapter VI A. Ld Counsel stated that he is NOT PRESSING this Ground, recording the same Ground No.9 is hereby dismissed

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)

depreciation based on the WDV of those assets whose bills are provided in the remand proceedings for earlier assessment years. Thus this Ground does not require any further adjudication. 26. Ground No.9 is disallowance of deduction claimed under Chapter VI A. Ld Counsel stated that he is NOT PRESSING this Ground, recording the same Ground No.9 is hereby dismissed

ALDIABLOS INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

Depreciation as per para-8 Rs.1,00,973.\n6). He has erred in law and facts in confirming the order of A.O. without\nconsidering the facts mentioned in the written submission and without\nreferring to the said submission and by wrongly applying the decision of\nRoshan Di Hattti and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif on the point of burden of\nproof

ALDIABLOS INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

Depreciation as per para-8 Rs.1,00,973.\n6). He has erred in law and facts in confirming the order of A.O. without\nconsidering the facts mentioned in the written submission and without\nreferring to the said submission and by wrongly applying the decision of\nRoshan Di Hattti and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif on the point of burden of\nproof

ALDIABLOS INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

Depreciation as per para-8 Rs.1,00,973.\n6). He has erred in law and facts in confirming the order of A.O. without\nconsidering the facts mentioned in the written submission and without\nreferring to the said submission and by wrongly applying the decision of\nRoshan Di Hattti and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif on the point of burden of\nproof

ALDIABLOS INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

Depreciation as per para-8 Rs.1,00,973.\n6). He has erred in law and facts in confirming the order of A.O. without\nconsidering the facts mentioned in the written submission and without\nreferring to the said submission and by wrongly applying the decision of\nRoshan Di Hattti and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif on the point of burden of\nproof

ALDIABLOS INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 353, 354, 355, 356 & 357/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

Depreciation as per para-8 Rs.1,00,973. 6). He has erred in law and facts in confirming the order of A.O. without considering the facts mentioned in the written submission and without referring to the said submission and by wrongly applying the decision of Roshan Di Hattti and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif on the point of burden of proof

GOPINATH BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-3

unexplained income of the appellant and the Hon’ble CIT(Appeals) have erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition so made aby the Ld. AO. (iv) In concluding that, SAF impex India Pvt. Ltd. had not given any loan of Rs.25,00,000/- to the appellant and in holding that, on 09.02.2012 Ras.25,00,000/- deposited

SHALBY LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.793/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15)

depreciation is not directly relatable to the undertakings transferred to the resulting company, be apportioned between the demerged company and the resulting company in the same proportion in which the assets of the undertakings have been retained by the demerged company and transferred to the resulting company, and be allowed to be carried forward and set off in the hands

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

money from M/s.Ideal Roadways Corporation which is a prop. concern of appellant's father Shri Dilip Palany, assessed to tax with same A.O. and for A.Y. 2009-10, scrutiny asstt. completed simultaneously by same A.O. on same date u/s. 144 o the Act. In the case of other four parties, the loan accepted was of as follows: (i) Keyur Shah

ROSELABS POLYMERS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed in limine

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) For The Assessment Year 2012-13 An Exparte Appellate Order Was Passed. For The Assessment Year 2012-13 One Shri Sagar Vasoya Appeared Before Ld. Cit(A), However The Assessee Appeal Was Dismissed By A Detailed Speaking Order.

unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act being the share application money received from various parties, (b) Rs.6,94,61,653/- being the purchases are not genuine and also disallowed proportionate depreciation

ROSELABS POLYMERS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed in limine

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) For The Assessment Year 2012-13 An Exparte Appellate Order Was Passed. For The Assessment Year 2012-13 One Shri Sagar Vasoya Appeared Before Ld. Cit(A), However The Assessee Appeal Was Dismissed By A Detailed Speaking Order.

unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act being the share application money received from various parties, (b) Rs.6,94,61,653/- being the purchases are not genuine and also disallowed proportionate depreciation

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

Money received for Shares 29,93,693/- 4. Unaccounted Receipts and Expenses 53,06,500/- 5. Unexplained Income 2,05,11,300/- 6. Disallowance of interest incurred on 1,50,000/- unsecured loan addition 7. Disallowance of excessive claim of 7,00,000/- depreciation

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

Money received for Shares 29,93,693/- 4. Unaccounted Receipts and Expenses 53,06,500/- 5. Unexplained Income 2,05,11,300/- 6. Disallowance of interest incurred on 1,50,000/- unsecured loan addition 7. Disallowance of excessive claim of 7,00,000/- depreciation

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

Money received for Shares 29,93,693/- 4. Unaccounted Receipts and Expenses 53,06,500/- 5. Unexplained Income 2,05,11,300/- 6. Disallowance of interest incurred on 1,50,000/- unsecured loan addition 7. Disallowance of excessive claim of 7,00,000/- depreciation