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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

d) Disallowance u/s 40(a) Rs.4,18,631/- (e) 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

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

d) Disallowance u/s 40(a) Rs.4,18,631/- (e) 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

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

d) Disallowance u/s 40(a) Rs.4,18,631/- (e) 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

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

d) Disallowance u/s 40(a) Rs.4,18,631/- (e) 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

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

d) Disallowance u/s 40(a) Rs.4,18,631/- (e) 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

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

d) Disallowance u/s 40(a) Rs.4,18,631/- (e) 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

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

d) Disallowance u/s 40(a) Rs.4,18,631/- (e) 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

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

D. Vachhani resulting in an unexplained amount of ₹2,39,752/-. As the assessee did not offer any explanation or supporting evidence, this amount was treated as unexplained income under section 69A of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer observed that VAT of ₹62,941/- and Service Tax of ₹1,64,778/- pertaining to earlier years were claimed as paid

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

D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 25.10.2023 passed for A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal

GLOBAL FABRICS PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2012-13

1), Ahmedabad. Kankaria Road, Ahmedabad – 380 0-22. [PAN – AAACO 7014 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Bhadresh Gandhakwala, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Saurabh Singh, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 01.05.2018 Date of pronouncement : 02.05.2018 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee against

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

THE ITO, WARD-9(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE PARSHWANATH CORPORATION,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.872/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1693/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11) 1. The Income Tax 1.Shree Parshwanath बनाम/ Corporation Officer, Ward-9(1) Vs. 50, 3Rd Floor Ahmedabad Harisiddh Chambers Ashram Road Ahmedabad-380 014 2. Shree Parshwanath 2. Income-Tax Officer Ward-9(1) Corporation, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfs 3093 C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellants) (""यथ" / Respondents) Assessee By : Ms. Arti Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr

D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned cross-appeals have been filed by the Assessee and the Revenue against the common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–Ahmedabad-5, [CIT(A) in short] vide appeal no.CIT(A)- XV/ITO.9(1)/18/2013-14 and now CIT(A)-5/Wd.9(1)/121/2014-15 dated 02/03/2015 arising in the assessment order

M/S. SHREE PARSHWANATH CORPORATION,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.872/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1693/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11) 1. The Income Tax 1.Shree Parshwanath बनाम/ Corporation Officer, Ward-9(1) Vs. 50, 3Rd Floor Ahmedabad Harisiddh Chambers Ashram Road Ahmedabad-380 014 2. Shree Parshwanath 2. Income-Tax Officer Ward-9(1) Corporation, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfs 3093 C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellants) (""यथ" / Respondents) Assessee By : Ms. Arti Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr

D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned cross-appeals have been filed by the Assessee and the Revenue against the common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–Ahmedabad-5, [CIT(A) in short] vide appeal no.CIT(A)- XV/ITO.9(1)/18/2013-14 and now CIT(A)-5/Wd.9(1)/121/2014-15 dated 02/03/2015 arising in the assessment order