THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.8,74,323/- (f) Interest on diversion of funds Rs.10,95,150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms of Clause (B) to Explanation 1 of Section

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(OSD),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.8,74,323/- (f) Interest on diversion of funds Rs.10,95,150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms of Clause (B) to Explanation 1 of Section

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.8,74,323/- (f) Interest on diversion of funds Rs.10,95,150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms of Clause (B) to Explanation 1 of Section

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.8,74,323/- (f) Interest on diversion of funds Rs.10,95,150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms of Clause (B) to Explanation 1 of Section

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.8,74,323/- (f) Interest on diversion of funds Rs.10,95,150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms of Clause (B) to Explanation 1 of Section

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.8,74,323/- (f) Interest on diversion of funds Rs.10,95,150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms of Clause (B) to Explanation 1 of Section

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.8,74,323/- (f) Interest on diversion of funds Rs.10,95,150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms of Clause (B) to Explanation 1 of Section

SHAILESHKUMAR DAHYABHAI PATEL,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(2) (NOW DCIT CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, GUJARAT, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, Ground Number 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment determining total income at ₹1,79,22,447/- and also initiated penalty proceedings under sections 270A, 271AAC and 272A

RHV ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. Further, an amount of ₹1,25,000/- being 5% of the donation amount was estimated as unexplained expenditure incurred as commission for arranging the bogus donation transaction. This amount was also added to the assessee’s total income under section 69C of the Act. Penalty proceedings under sections 270A, 271AAC

RHV ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. Further, an amount of ₹1,25,000/- being 5% of the donation amount was estimated as unexplained expenditure incurred as commission for arranging the bogus donation transaction. This amount was also added to the assessee’s total income under section 69C of the Act. Penalty proceedings under sections 270A, 271AAC

SAHEB INDUSTRIES,ANKLESHWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed and added back in total income U/s. 40(b) of the Income Tax Act in the Return of AOP M/s. Neptune Associates and interest income of Rs. 2,43,465/- has already been offered as income from other sources. Accordingly, total interest income of Rs. 61,51,804/- as mentioned in Form No. 26AS have already been considered

SHRI BHADRAWADI KRUSHI VIKAS SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LIMITED,BOTAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(10), BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

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

disallowed u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act to be taxed under the provisions of section115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the addition of Rs.56,78,000/- u/s 69A is confirmed. However, a detailed written submission was submitted to CIT(A) on 01.09.2025 vide portal acknowledgement no 253492501010925 and 253403071010925 which has not been considered