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

271E are not lawful as the appellant did not have taken or repaid any unsecured loans from its Directors. The CIT(A) has also not considered the legality of the case and disposed the appeal by dismissing appeal which is not reasonable. 3. As the penalties imposed were void, illegal or inoperative since inception of the proceedings

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

271E are not lawful as the appellant did not have taken or repaid any unsecured loans from its Directors. The CIT(A) has also not considered the legality of the case and disposed the appeal by dismissing appeal which is not reasonable. 3. As the penalties imposed were void, illegal or inoperative since inception of the proceedings

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

271E of the Act dated 24/09/2013 respectively. I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 2 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO ITA No. 1030 & 1032/Ahd/2013 A.Ys. 2003-04 & 2004-05: 2. Since the facts and the issues under consideration in both the appeals are identical we shall first deal with

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

271E of the Act dated 24/09/2013 respectively. I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 2 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO ITA No. 1030 & 1032/Ahd/2013 A.Ys. 2003-04 & 2004-05: 2. Since the facts and the issues under consideration in both the appeals are identical we shall first deal with

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

271E of the Act dated 24/09/2013 respectively. I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 2 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO ITA No. 1030 & 1032/Ahd/2013 A.Ys. 2003-04 & 2004-05: 2. Since the facts and the issues under consideration in both the appeals are identical we shall first deal with

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

271E of the Act dated 24/09/2013 respectively. I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 2 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO ITA No. 1030 & 1032/Ahd/2013 A.Ys. 2003-04 & 2004-05: 2. Since the facts and the issues under consideration in both the appeals are identical we shall first deal with

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

271E of the Act dated 24/09/2013 respectively. I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 2 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO ITA No. 1030 & 1032/Ahd/2013 A.Ys. 2003-04 & 2004-05: 2. Since the facts and the issues under consideration in both the appeals are identical we shall first deal with

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

271E of the Act dated 24/09/2013 respectively. I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 2 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO ITA No. 1030 & 1032/Ahd/2013 A.Ys. 2003-04 & 2004-05: 2. Since the facts and the issues under consideration in both the appeals are identical we shall first deal with

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

THE ITO, WARD 8(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. VARIJ BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed; whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms.Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Memeber & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2008-09 Varij Builders P.Ltd. Ito, Ward-8(4) 2, Sejal House Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Maninagar Railway Station Maninagar Ahmedabad 380 008. Pan : Aaccv5656Q Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-8(4) Varij Builders P.Ltd. Ahmedabad. Vs 2, Sejal House Nr. Maninagar Railway Station Maninagar Ahmedabad 380 008 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms.Nupur Shah, Ar & Shri Dhiren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rameshkumar L. Sadhu, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: These Are Cross Appeals One Filed By The Assessee In Ita No.1915/Ahd/2013 & Another Filed By The Revenue In Ita No.2008/Ahd/2013 Against Order Dated 9.5.2013 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xiv, Ahmedabad [In Short Referred As “Ld.Cit(A)”] Relating To The Assessment Year 2008-09. Ita No.1915 & 2008/Ahd/2013 2 2. Original Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Unexplained Cash Credit U/S.68 Of The Act Of Rs.92,00,000/- On Account Of Share Application Money Received In Cash.

271E of the Act. 4. Aggrieved against the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-14, Ahmedabad [herein after referred as “Ld.CIT(A)”] wherein by a detailed order confirmed addition of Rs.92 lakhs on account of share application received in cash and deleted addition of Rs.1.75 crores received in cheque payment, and thereby

VARIJ BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,. WARD-8(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed; whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms.Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Memeber & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2008-09 Varij Builders P.Ltd. Ito, Ward-8(4) 2, Sejal House Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Maninagar Railway Station Maninagar Ahmedabad 380 008. Pan : Aaccv5656Q Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-8(4) Varij Builders P.Ltd. Ahmedabad. Vs 2, Sejal House Nr. Maninagar Railway Station Maninagar Ahmedabad 380 008 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms.Nupur Shah, Ar & Shri Dhiren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rameshkumar L. Sadhu, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: These Are Cross Appeals One Filed By The Assessee In Ita No.1915/Ahd/2013 & Another Filed By The Revenue In Ita No.2008/Ahd/2013 Against Order Dated 9.5.2013 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xiv, Ahmedabad [In Short Referred As “Ld.Cit(A)”] Relating To The Assessment Year 2008-09. Ita No.1915 & 2008/Ahd/2013 2 2. Original Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Unexplained Cash Credit U/S.68 Of The Act Of Rs.92,00,000/- On Account Of Share Application Money Received In Cash.

271E of the Act. 4. Aggrieved against the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-14, Ahmedabad [herein after referred as “Ld.CIT(A)”] wherein by a detailed order confirmed addition of Rs.92 lakhs on account of share application received in cash and deleted addition of Rs.1.75 crores received in cheque payment, and thereby

MR. PRANJAL PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-2,, AHMEDABAD

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

271E of the Act for violation of provisions of section 269SS and 2697T. In view of the above facts as the order passed by the AO on 10/02/2015 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, a notice u/s.263 of the Act dated 09/03/2017 was issued intimating the above grounds, and calling upon the assessee to show cause