SHALIGRAM INFRA PROJECTS LLP ( LTD. LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JCIT (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarit(Ss)A No.167/Ahd/2021 Asstt.Year : 2017-18 & Asst.Year : 2018-19 Shaligram Infra Projects Llp Vs. The Jcit (Osd) 4Th Floor, Office No.401-402 Central Cir.2(2) B/H. Dishman House Ahmedabad. Opp: Sankalp Grace Ii, Ambli Ahmedabad. Pan: Acpfs 7047 A It(Ss)A No.194,195 & 196/Ahd/2021 Asstt.Year : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 & Asst.Year : 2018-19 The Jcit (Osd) Vs. Shaligram Infra Projects Llp Central Cir.2(2) 4Th Floor, Office No.401-402 Ahmedabad. B/H. Dishman House Opp: Sankalp Grace Ii, Ambli Ahmedabad.

69A provided Disallowance of Interest @15% paid to related 3,61,700 interest u/s parties vs. 9–12% to others; 40A(2)(b) excess 3% disallowed 15.7 The assessee preferred appeals before CIT(A) against the orders of Assessing Officer In case of A.Y. 2017-18 and A.Y. 2018-19. The ld. CIT(A) carefully examined the seized documents, statements

MAHENDRA PATEL BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarit(Ss)A No.61 To 65/Ahd/2025 Asstt.Year : 2015-16 To 2019-20 And

Disallowance u/s 37(1) (Rs.) 10,30,900 10,15,450 9,20,502 15,18,750 12,91,690 12,49,397 On Money u/s 69A (Rs.) 0 20,90,000 30,59,000 26,30,000 6,30,000 8,80,000 Delayed Payment of EPF (Rs.) 26,488 44,746 22,904 0 0 0 Assessed Income

SANKALP RECREATION PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act for these assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18. Therefore, following the ruling of Apex Court, the additions made by the AO for AY 2013-14 to 2017- 18 under section 36(1)(va) of the Act are hereby directed to be deleted. 17.1. As the assessment year

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SANKALP RECREATION PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act for these assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18. Therefore, following the ruling of Apex Court, the additions made by the AO for AY 2013-14 to 2017- 18 under section 36(1)(va) of the Act are hereby directed to be deleted. 17.1. As the assessment year

MANISH RANJAN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MONARCH NETWORTH CAPITAL LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue for A.Y. 2015–16 is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

disallowance of brought forward loss was made without adequate opportunity or justification and required verification. 5.2. Accordingly, the CIT(A) deleted the additions made under section 69A

THE ACIT.(OSD), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

disallowance , and consequently deduction under section 80IA(4) will also go up . The ld. Sr. DR, Shri Chetram Meena submitted that this contention raised by the ld. Senior Advocate is not raised in the grounds of CO filed by the assessee with ITAT , that the amount added to the income of the assessee will lead to the increase in deduction

THE ACIT.(OSD), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

disallowance , and consequently deduction under section 80IA(4) will also go up . The ld. Sr. DR, Shri Chetram Meena submitted that this contention raised by the ld. Senior Advocate is not raised in the grounds of CO filed by the assessee with ITAT , that the amount added to the income of the assessee will lead to the increase in deduction

KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.(OSD),CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

disallowance , and consequently deduction under section 80IA(4) will also go up . The ld. Sr. DR, Shri Chetram Meena submitted that this contention raised by the ld. Senior Advocate is not raised in the grounds of CO filed by the assessee with ITAT , that the amount added to the income of the assessee will lead to the increase in deduction

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 excess interest of ₹35,21,790/-. The Assessing Officer also noticed a mismatch in advances received from Shri Pathik 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

KARTIK CLOTHING & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 69A of the Act. Further, it was submitted that it is a well settled law that denial of opportunity of cross examination also renders the assessment order bad in law. 6. In response, the Ld. DR placed reliance on the observations made by the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(Appeals) in their respective orders. 7. We have heard

ALDIABLOS INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

Sections\n69, 69A, and disallowance of expenses and liabilities, along with initiation of\npenalty proceedings.\n8.1 The assessee has challenged

AGNEE GAS AGENCY,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

Bench: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं/ITA No.1604/Ahd/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18\nAgnee Gas Agency\n13, Sukhram Chambers\nKhodiarnagar Char Rasta\nBapunagar\nAhmedabad - 380 024\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AAHFA 7561 M\nThe Income Tax Officer\nबनाम /\nWard-5(3)(3)\nv/s.\nAhmedabad\nअपीलार्थी/ (Appellant)\nप्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent)\nAssessee by:\nHardik Vora office\nRevenue by:\nShri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR\nसुनवाई क

disallowance of expenses (20%) - Rs.3,71,556/-\n• Addition under section 69A of the Act (8% of demonetized deposits) - Rs.11

ACIT CC 2(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. AISHA DHIRAJ GOGIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result: 50. To summarize the final outcome:

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha["ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" एवं "ी नरे" साद िस!ा, लेखा सद" के सम#।]

Disallowance of exemption claimed on Long Term Capital Gains under section 10(38) of the Act, treating the underlying shares as "penny stocks"; and (iv) Addition on account of alleged on-money received on the sale of property in the Earth Erita project. These additions were made based on material allegedly found during the search action, including digital data like

IDEAL EDUCATION TRUST,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD EXEMPTION, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.589/Ahd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ideal Education Trust The Income Tax Officer 1, Indra Duplex, बनाम/ Ward Exemption, Harni Road, Baroda Vadodara V/S. Baroda – 390 022 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Aaati 5704 P (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Cit(A)” ], Dated 26.02.2024, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12 Arising Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act,1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”]. Ideal Education Trust Vs. The Ito-Ward Exemption Asst. Year : 2011-12

disallowed the claim and treated the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as unexplained cash/cheque credit under section 69A of the Act, adding

KAUSHIK NARSINHBHAI RAGVANI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 2143 & 2144/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year 2012-13 & 2013-14

69A for cash deposits, while simultaneously accepting explanation for cash withdrawals under section 690 from the same account, leads to inconsistent and contradictory findings. 2.4 It is therefore prayed that the addition of Rs. 60,000/- made by the AO and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) may please be deleted in the interest of natural justice considering the facts

KAUSHIK NARSINHBHAI RAGVANI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 2143 & 2144/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year 2012-13 & 2013-14

69A for cash deposits, while simultaneously accepting explanation for cash withdrawals under section 690 from the same account, leads to inconsistent and contradictory findings. 2.4 It is therefore prayed that the addition of Rs. 60,000/- made by the AO and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) may please be deleted in the interest of natural justice considering the facts

KAUSHIK PURSHOTTAMDAS SAKARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3)(PREVIOUSLY WARD-5(2)(5)), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

section 69A of the Act and disallowed expenses amounting to Rs.4,65,637/-. Facts of the case: 2. The brief

SHRI SANJIV CHANDRAVADAN SHAH,VADODARA vs. TEH DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed and ITA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 69A of the Act relating to Unexplained Bullion (Rs.11,38,410/-) and disallowance under Section 80IB(11C) of the Act. 12. The Ld. AR submitted