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)

cash deposited and cheque Clering/ transfer 52,97,389 entries in Bank Account 3 Disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) 11,114 4 Disallowance

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)

cash deposited and cheque Clering/ transfer 52,97,389 entries in Bank Account 3 Disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) 11,114 4 Disallowance

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)

cash deposited and cheque Clering/ transfer 52,97,389 entries in Bank Account 3 Disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) 11,114 4 Disallowance

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)

cash deposited and cheque Clering/ transfer 52,97,389 entries in Bank Account 3 Disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) 11,114 4 Disallowance

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)

cash deposited and cheque Clering/ transfer 52,97,389 entries in Bank Account 3 Disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) 11,114 4 Disallowance

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)

cash deposited and cheque Clering/ transfer 52,97,389 entries in Bank Account 3 Disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) 11,114 4 Disallowance

AMIT CHAMPAKLAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-7(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

cash deposit, Id. AO disallowed the cash deposited in the bank account amounting to Rs 23,92,400/- under section

THE FALAHE DARAIN EDUCATION SOCIETY,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, EXMP., AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

deposited cash in two bank account in Bank of India and State Bank of India totaling to Rs.70,69,780/-. Again in the absence of any justification regarding the source of said cash, the AO treated the same as income of the assessee and made addition to the income of the ITA No. 2111/Ahd/2025 [The Falahe Darain Education Society

HARISHKUMAR KHUSHALRAY BHATT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(2) NOW WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Harishkumar Khushalray Bhatt Ito, Ward-3(3)(2) P/1, Chandragupta Apartment Vs. Ahmedabad. Nr. Gordhandas Patel Hospital Vastrapur Ahmedabad. Pan : Abspb 3786 F (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Pritesh L. Shah, Ar : Shri Uday Kishanrao Kakne, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

disallowance of donation under section 80G. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.32,61,500/- under section 69A, holding that the explanation for cash deposits

BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA, (L/H OF LATE BHAGWATSINH J CHAVDA),AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

disallowed the claim of expenses in view of the fact that PAN of contractee has not been furnished. We observe that again in respect of these expenses, all expenses have been incurred by the assessee in cash, there is no proof of deduction of tax at source at the time of making payment, no supporting details/bills/vouchers etc. have been furnished

LATE BHAGWATSINH JIBHUBHAI CHAVDA)L/H.BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

disallowed the claim of expenses in view of the fact that PAN of contractee has not been furnished. We observe that again in respect of these expenses, all expenses have been incurred by the assessee in cash, there is no proof of deduction of tax at source at the time of making payment, no supporting details/bills/vouchers etc. have been furnished

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI R. MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

disallowed the claim of expenses in view of the fact that PAN of contractee has not been furnished. We observe that again in respect of these expenses, all expenses have been incurred by the assessee in cash, there is no proof of deduction of tax at source at the time of making payment, no supporting details/bills/vouchers etc. have been furnished

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI RANCHHODBHAI MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

disallowed the claim of expenses in view of the fact that PAN of contractee has not been furnished. We observe that again in respect of these expenses, all expenses have been incurred by the assessee in cash, there is no proof of deduction of tax at source at the time of making payment, no supporting details/bills/vouchers etc. have been furnished

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RAMESHKUMAR MELAPCHAND SHAH, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

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

disallowance of Rs.10,80,000/- being salary expenses u/s. 37 of the Act. 6. Heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record including the Paper Book and case laws filed by the assessee. The assessee claims that the cash deposit

RAMESHKUMAR MELAPCHAND SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

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

disallowance of Rs.10,80,000/- being salary expenses u/s. 37 of the Act. 6. Heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record including the Paper Book and case laws filed by the assessee. The assessee claims that the cash deposit

FURNISH HOME,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1) OLD WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the asessee is allowed, whereas, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

cash deposits remaining unexplained Rs.51,00,241/- iii. Import payments and custom duties disallowed by way of evidence amounting to Rs.42

INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3)(1),AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. FURNISH HOME, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the asessee is allowed, whereas, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), wherein detailed submissions supported by the books of accounts, statutory returns, confirmation and other documentary evidences were filed. A remand report of the AO was sought on the same by the Ld. CIT(A) after considering which, Ld. CIT(A) deleted

cash deposits remaining unexplained Rs.51,00,241/- iii. Import payments and custom duties disallowed by way of evidence amounting to Rs.42

THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE, MEHSANA vs. SHRI UMESH VADILAL KHAMAR, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Disallowed bogus purchases. Rs. 2,21,48,539/- Cash payments. Rs. 1,80,13,314/- Unexplained source of Cash Deposits