ORIENTAL ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

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

1,06,18,997/-. The AO noted that the assessee furnished only the names and amounts of trade payables without any supporting documents like ledgers, bank statements, or purchase bills. No details regarding payments made in subsequent years were provided. No confirmation of these trade payables, communication copies, PANs, or addresses of these parties were supplied to facilitate independent inquiry

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

Disallowance u/s 14A – Rs. 8,07,84,146 as discussed Book Profit u/s. 115JB Rs. 2011,70,46,681 Tax @ 18.5% Rs. 372,16,53,636 9. Ultimately, the assessment order was passed determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.18,04,62,99,990/- under Section 143C(B) r.w.s. 144C(5) of the Act under the normal provision

YUDO HOT RUNNERS INDIA PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER,NFAC, DELHI PRESENT JURIDICTION THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2015-16

disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act and confirmed the addition under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act. After taking cognisance of the assessee’s submissions, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.1,21,467/- thereby stating that the assessee has evaded tax. 4. Being aggrieved by the penalty order

ATUL GOVINDJI SHROFF,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. Since the assessee under repotting the Income which is in I.T.A No. 1443/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 8 Atul Govindji Shroff vs. DCIT consequence of misreporting of facts, penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the 1.T. Act are also being initiated. 5. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PINAC STOCK BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri T.R Senthil Kumar

disallowed." 16.1 However, the undisputed fact is this that the assessee has not made any sales of the shares of the impugned company. Therefore, in our considered view the addition has been made by the AO which was consequently confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), on wrong assumption of facts. 16.2 It is also pertinent to note that the loss

ROBIN RAMAVTAR GOENKA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue IT[SS]A Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

246 Payout on sale of stock --- 40,60,983 40,60,983 6,30,01,729 31,04,39,180 Total 24,74,37,451 I.T.(SS)A No. 46/Ahd/2023 and Ors. A.Ys. 2018-19 & ors Page No 6 Robin R Goenka. Vs. ACIT 3.2. Since unaccounted payments are higher than the unaccounted receipts, ‘unaccounted payments’ are considered for determining

CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SUNIT SUDHIRBHAI CHOKSHI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) On The Quantum Addition, Wherein Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Addition To Rs.4,71,46,684/- Only. Thus The Assessing Officer Levied Penalty Of Rs.2,80,88,610/- Being 60% Of Addition Confirmed By Ld. Cit(A) U/S. 271Aab Of The Act.

Disallowance of 2,29,79,570 The Ld. CIT(A) - interest expenditure has deleted the on bogus unsecured addition. loan , I.T.A Nos. 1474 & 1475/Ahd/2024 A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No 3 DCIT Vs. Sunit Sudhirbhai Chokshi 4. Addition on account 3,10,475 The Ld. CIT(A) The Ld. ITAT of commission has confirmed has confirmed addition expenses

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) , AHMEDABAD vs. SUNIT SUDHIRBHAI CHOKSHI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) On The Quantum Addition, Wherein Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Addition To Rs.4,71,46,684/- Only. Thus The Assessing Officer Levied Penalty Of Rs.2,80,88,610/- Being 60% Of Addition Confirmed By Ld. Cit(A) U/S. 271Aab Of The Act.

Disallowance of 2,29,79,570 The Ld. CIT(A) - interest expenditure has deleted the on bogus unsecured addition. loan , I.T.A Nos. 1474 & 1475/Ahd/2024 A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No 3 DCIT Vs. Sunit Sudhirbhai Chokshi 4. Addition on account 3,10,475 The Ld. CIT(A) The Ld. ITAT of commission has confirmed has confirmed addition expenses

CHIRAG JAYANTIBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed on account of\nunexplained cash credit and added back to total income. Penalty proceedings are\ninitiated separately u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act in respect of income referred in section\n68 of the Act.\"\n4.\nIn appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee with\nthe following observations:\n“6.\nIn grounds No. 1

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross\nObjection of the assessee, both are allowed

1) of the IT Act and\nper the decision of Hon'ble ITAT in A.Y. 2013-14 in appellant's\ncase.\"\n6.\nLd.Counsel for the assessee pointed out that in the preceding\nyear identical disallowance of claim of mine closure expenses u/s\n43B of the Act by the AO was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) and the\nassessee had carried