ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. ORIENTAL ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, PCC NOTIFIED AREA

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

disallowed 10% of the total trade payables due to inadequate documentation and ITA Nos.661/Ahd/2023 (By Assessee), 732 & 807/Ahd/2023 (By Revenue) Oriental Enterprise Pvt.Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst. Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19 failure to provide proof of the genuineness of transactions. The lack of response from third parties to section 133(6

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. ORIENTAL ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,, PCC NOTIFIED AREA

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

disallowed 10% of the total trade payables due to inadequate documentation and ITA Nos.661/Ahd/2023 (By Assessee), 732 & 807/Ahd/2023 (By Revenue) Oriental Enterprise Pvt.Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst. Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19 failure to provide proof of the genuineness of transactions. The lack of response from third parties to section 133(6

HARSHADKUMAR HARGOVANDAS PATEL,KALOL vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

133(6) or summons under section 131 to\nverify the genuineness of the transactions, summarily disallowed the entire\nclaim merely

PARIKH AMITKUMAR MAHENDRABHAI,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with the above directions

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Parikh Amitkumar Mahendrabhai The Dcit 6, Alaknanda Society Circle 1(1)(1) Sama, Vadodara 390 008. Vadodara. Pan : Acppp 2527 G (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Pate, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

133(6) from Arcadia Developers that no such agreement 4 existed and that Arcadia Developers had not carried out any construction on behalf of the assessee, the assessee was required to show cause why the deduction under section 54 should not be disallowed

SHITAL VIPULKUMAR DHOLAKIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

disallowance under Section 40A(3) was made without adequate investigation and without establishing the foundational facts necessary to invoke the provision. The Tribunal noted a lack of proper enquiry into the banking trail and financial transactions of the suppliers.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "40A(3)", "143(3)", "133(6

GUJARAT STATE FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

6. Ground no.-2 pertains to deduction under Section 80G of the Act. During the year the assessee had contributed Rs.3,57,42,548/- to Mukhyamantri Shree Swachchta Nidhi Gujarat as part of its CSR initiative. This amount was disallowed by the assessee under Section 37 of the Act and added to the income. However, as contribution to Mukhyamantri Shree

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

133(6), such notice was duly served upon both the lenders. Both the lenders filed their respective reply. AO recorded that complete details as desired by him was not furnished. AO by referring the modus operandi alleged entry provider treated the loan transaction as accommodation entry and also disallowed the interest expenses. We find that before

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

133(6), such notice was duly served upon both the lenders. Both the lenders filed their respective reply. AO recorded that complete details as desired by him was not furnished. AO by referring the modus operandi alleged entry provider treated the loan transaction as accommodation entry and also disallowed the interest expenses. We find that before

H K ISPAT PVT. LTD.,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

133(6), such notice was duly served upon both the lenders. Both the lenders filed their respective reply. AO recorded that complete details as desired by him was not furnished. AO by referring the modus operandi alleged entry provider treated the loan transaction as accommodation entry and also disallowed the interest expenses. We find that before

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD vs. KRISHNA CORPORATION, AHMEDABAD

The appeal are Allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

section 133(6) of the Act. The Ld.AO has carried out disallowance of Rs.7,76,63,888/-, the extract from

MAYUR NIRMALKUMAR JAIN,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 133(6) were returned undelivered does suggest that creditors were not in existence and that the genuineness of the transactions was doubtful. With regards to addition of ₹21,38,214 as Unexplained Cash Credit (Unsecured Loans), the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO made an addition of ₹21,38,214 to the assessee's income, treating

RAMESHKUMAR G. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(5) PRESENT JURISDICTION ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), VADODARA

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

disallowance of expenses were also rendered infructuous.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "144", "147", "148", "142(1)", "133(6)", "271(1)(b)", "44AD

ABHAYKUMAR SEVANTILAL SANGHAVI,DEESA vs. OLD JURISDICTION- CIRCLE,PALANPUR NEW JURISDICTION-CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1367/Ahd/2024 & 1368/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Abhaykumar Sevantilal Acit Circle, Palanpur बनाम/ Sanghavi [Old Jurisdiction-Circle, V/S. Sanghavi Brothers Palanpur. 1St Floor, Swastik Bldg New Jurisdiction-Circle, Nr. City Police Station Gandhinagar.] Nr. Dena Bank, Main Bazar Deesa – 385 535 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afbps 1660 L (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Pertain To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2016-17 & 2017-18. Since The Issues Involved Are Common & Connected, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. The Appeals Arise Out Of The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The

133(6) of the Act or summon the lenders under Section 131 of the Act to verify the cash deposits or their sources. This crucial step, which could have resolved any doubt regarding the lenders’ creditworthiness, was not undertaken by the AO. 16.1. It is a settled legal position, as held by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court

ABHAYKUMAR SEVANTILAL SANGHAVI,DEESA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE- PALANPUR , PALANPUR

Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1367/Ahd/2024 & 1368/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Abhaykumar Sevantilal Acit Circle, Palanpur बनाम/ Sanghavi [Old Jurisdiction-Circle, V/S. Sanghavi Brothers Palanpur. 1St Floor, Swastik Bldg New Jurisdiction-Circle, Nr. City Police Station Gandhinagar.] Nr. Dena Bank, Main Bazar Deesa – 385 535 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afbps 1660 L (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Pertain To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2016-17 & 2017-18. Since The Issues Involved Are Common & Connected, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. The Appeals Arise Out Of The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The

133(6) of the Act or summon the lenders under Section 131 of the Act to verify the cash deposits or their sources. This crucial step, which could have resolved any doubt regarding the lenders’ creditworthiness, was not undertaken by the AO. 16.1. It is a settled legal position, as held by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2 1 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act can be made in the absence of any exempt income, is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court had held in the case of PCIT vs. Adani Wilmar Limited, DCIT vs. HDB Financial Services Limited Page 4 of 6 133

VINIT BIPINCHANDRA SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3) (PREVIOUSLY WARD-5(2)(4)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The facts of the cases relied upon by the assessee are found to be totally different from the facts of the present case and, therefore, those decisions are not found material to adjudicate the issue in the present case. Further, the remand report of the Assessing Officer on this issue was in respect

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AWAS DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 368/Ahd/2020 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T, M/S Awas Developers, Central Circle-1(4), Vs. “Agam Buglows” Ahmedabad. Opp. Subhash Society, Sanand-Kalol Road, Ahmedabad.

133(6) of the Act. As such, the AO has not brought any corroborative material to hold that the assessee has received on money except the statement of Shri Ghansyam Vaghel recorded under section 133A of the Act which does not carry evidentiary value. At this point of time, it is important to mention that the Higher Judicial forum

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LTD.(A SUCCESSOR OF LUK INDIA PVT. LTD)),VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1) (EARLIER ACIT, CIRCLE-1, HOSUR), VADODARA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of the expenses under Section 37 of the Act, despite the fact that there was no specific finding either by AO or TPO or CIT(A) that the aforesaid expenses were not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that the aforesaid grounds of appeal have been dismissed