SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of business expenditure of Rs. 5,98,616/- the ld. counsel submitted that Assessing Officer has not found any fault with the genuineness of such expenses and therefore under such circumstances no penalty can be levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Regarding penalty on account of addition of Rs. 2.80 lakhs

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of business expenditure of Rs. 5,98,616/- the ld. counsel submitted that Assessing Officer has not found any fault with the genuineness of such expenses and therefore under such circumstances no penalty can be levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Regarding penalty on account of addition of Rs. 2.80 lakhs

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of business expenditure of Rs. 5,98,616/- the ld. counsel submitted that Assessing Officer has not found any fault with the genuineness of such expenses and therefore under such circumstances no penalty can be levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Regarding penalty on account of addition of Rs. 2.80 lakhs

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of business expenditure of Rs. 5,98,616/- the ld. counsel submitted that Assessing Officer has not found any fault with the genuineness of such expenses and therefore under such circumstances no penalty can be levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Regarding penalty on account of addition of Rs. 2.80 lakhs

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of business expenditure of Rs. 5,98,616/- the ld. counsel submitted that Assessing Officer has not found any fault with the genuineness of such expenses and therefore under such circumstances no penalty can be levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Regarding penalty on account of addition of Rs. 2.80 lakhs

ARMAN FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2001-02 is also partly allowed

section 269SS and 269T and Learned CIT (A) has also not appreciated the facts in proper perspective and rejected the above grounds. 1.2. Your appellant also submits that the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and facts by misinterpreting explanation to sec.73. The explanation to sec.73 was inserted by the Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975 w.e.f. 01/04/77, and that

ARMAN LEASE & FINANCE LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2001-02 is also partly allowed

section 269SS and 269T and Learned CIT (A) has also not appreciated the facts in proper perspective and rejected the above grounds. 1.2. Your appellant also submits that the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and facts by misinterpreting explanation to sec.73. The explanation to sec.73 was inserted by the Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975 w.e.f. 01/04/77, and that

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

disallowance of interest incurred on unsecured loan, the assessee has not prayed this ground and, therefore, the addition was sustained. Thus, this cannot be stated as concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Thus, the CIT(A) has rightly granted partial relief to the assessee and there is no need to interfere with the same. Appeal being

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

disallowance of interest incurred on unsecured loan, the assessee has not prayed this ground and, therefore, the addition was sustained. Thus, this cannot be stated as concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Thus, the CIT(A) has rightly granted partial relief to the assessee and there is no need to interfere with the same. Appeal being

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

disallowance of interest incurred on unsecured loan, the assessee has not prayed this ground and, therefore, the addition was sustained. Thus, this cannot be stated as concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Thus, the CIT(A) has rightly granted partial relief to the assessee and there is no need to interfere with the same. Appeal being

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

disallowance of interest incurred on unsecured loan, the assessee has not prayed this ground and, therefore, the addition was sustained. Thus, this cannot be stated as concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Thus, the CIT(A) has rightly granted partial relief to the assessee and there is no need to interfere with the same. Appeal being

ZAHURAHMED ABDULPAZZAK VALJIWALA,HIMMATNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance required under Section 43B of the Act as assessee has never collected the service tax and not provided/debited any liability of service tax in its books of account and claimed in the return of income. In view of this, the observation that service tax liability/payment is required to be taxed under Section 43B is totally incorrect on facts

SHRI CHIKESH JAYANTIBHAI PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 269SS and 269T of the Act. Even if, the emergency (not admitting otherwise by A.O. and also by myself) is believed for acceptance of such deposit in cash but the repayment in cash to these parties in spite of they are having bank accounts clearly reflect the non-genuinity of such transactions though during the course of recording

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. REKHA INDRAVADAN CHOKSHI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Department’s appeal is dismissed

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

269T. 2. It was also found that out of remaining amount Rs. 45,00,000/- and Rs. 27,00,000/- were paid by Shri Dennis Indravadan Chokshi and Smt Taraben Jagjivandas Chokshi respectively who are son and mother of the Indravadan J Chokshi. I.T.A Nos. 270 & 287/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 9 Rekhaben INdravadan Chokshi vs. ITO 3. Further, Shri Dennis

REKHABEN INDRAVADAN CHOKSHI,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-5(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Department’s appeal is dismissed

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

269T. 2. It was also found that out of remaining amount Rs. 45,00,000/- and Rs. 27,00,000/- were paid by Shri Dennis Indravadan Chokshi and Smt Taraben Jagjivandas Chokshi respectively who are son and mother of the Indravadan J Chokshi. I.T.A Nos. 270 & 287/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 9 Rekhaben INdravadan Chokshi vs. ITO 3. Further, Shri Dennis

HIMANSHU ENGINEERING WORKS,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowable u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. The AO omitted to analyse this aspect in the assessment order and simply accepted the assessee’s explanation without appreciating that the language of section 36(1)(va) of the Act is plain and unambiguous. Fourthly, on perusal of P&L Account, it was noticed that the assessee had credited