DR. JWALIT H. SHETH,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-3(1), BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1855/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1856/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Dr.Jwalit H. Sheth, D.C.I.T., Neuro Surgical Hospital, Vs. Circle 3(1), Sanstha Vasahat, Vadodara. Vadodara-390001. Pan: Abwps4325H

disallowance. 2.00 YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND AND/OR DELETE ALL OR ANY GROUND(S) TAKE HEREINABOVE. 3. The only interconnected issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO for ₹ 1,11,111/- under section 69B

DIYA HYGIENE FLOURS PRIVATE LIMITED,NADIAD vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL) SURAT, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 69B, 69C as well as made disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act has passed Assessment Order

SHRI NAVINCHANDRA N. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

section 69B of the Act. (iii) The assessee during the financial year 2011-12 relevant to the asst. year 2012-13 has earned exempted income of Rs. 19,88,178/- in the form of dividend u/s 10(34) of the Act. On further verification, it was seen that the assessee had not made any disallowance

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JAS INFRASPACE PRIVATE LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 69B of the Act. 46. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its ground of appeal for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 2130/AHD/2017 for the assessment year 2012-13. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 2130/AHD/2017 shall also be applicable

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JAS INFRA SPACE PRIVATE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 69B of the Act. 46. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its ground of appeal for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 2130/AHD/2017 for the assessment year 2012-13. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 2130/AHD/2017 shall also be applicable

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JAS INFRA SPACE PRIVATE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 69B of the Act. 46. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its ground of appeal for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 2130/AHD/2017 for the assessment year 2012-13. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 2130/AHD/2017 shall also be applicable

JAS INFRASPACE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 69B of the Act. 46. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its ground of appeal for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 2130/AHD/2017 for the assessment year 2012-13. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 2130/AHD/2017 shall also be applicable

SANDIP B. PADSALA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) For Adjudication. 3. The Ld. Pr Cit Erred On Facts & In Law In Holding That The Assessing Officer Erred In Granting Deduction Of Interest Of Rs. 11,70,726/- Without Appreciating That The Appellant Had Not Claimed Deduction Of The Same While Preparing Return Of Income. The Appellant Craves Permission To Add, Alter, Amend Or Withdraw Any Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal Either Before Or During The Course Of Rearing Of The Appeal.”

sections 69, 69A, 69B & 69C in view of the scheme of those provisions. 5.2 In view of the above, it is seen that it is a settled proposition of law that no deduction /allowance is allowable against such unexplained cash credit which is considered as income of the assessee. In the present facts, during the course of assessment

RIDDHI STEEL & TUBES PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ridhi Steels & Tubes Pvt.Ltd. Acit, Cir.5 Ahmedabad. 83/84, Village Kamod Vs. Piplaj Pirana Road Aslali Piplaj, Ahmedabad Pan : Aaccr 0175 J "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Acit, Cir.5 Ridhi Steels & Tubes Pvt.Ltd. Ahmedabad. 83/84, Village Kamod Vs. Piplaj Pirana Road Aslali Piplaj, Ahmedabad

69B of the Income Tax Act. The ld.AO accordingly made addition of Rs.1,37,47,163/-. On appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has deleted this addition by observing that identical addition was made in the Asstt.Year 2009-10, which was though confirmed by the ld.CIT(A), but deleted by the Tribunal. Order of the Tribunal has also been upheld

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. RIDDHI STEEL & TUBE PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ridhi Steels & Tubes Pvt.Ltd. Acit, Cir.5 Ahmedabad. 83/84, Village Kamod Vs. Piplaj Pirana Road Aslali Piplaj, Ahmedabad Pan : Aaccr 0175 J "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Acit, Cir.5 Ridhi Steels & Tubes Pvt.Ltd. Ahmedabad. 83/84, Village Kamod Vs. Piplaj Pirana Road Aslali Piplaj, Ahmedabad

69B of the Income Tax Act. The ld.AO accordingly made addition of Rs.1,37,47,163/-. On appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has deleted this addition by observing that identical addition was made in the Asstt.Year 2009-10, which was though confirmed by the ld.CIT(A), but deleted by the Tribunal. Order of the Tribunal has also been upheld

SHRI PRAVINCHANDRA R PATEL,VADODARA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

69B of the Act and also erred in holding and directing the Id. AO that the said amount be taxed on protective basis the hands of Shri Pravinchandra Patel and also in the hands of all the directors of the appellant as their joint and several liabilities. (.Para 39.2 and 39.3 on page 127/128

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA vs. NEOTECH EDUCATION FOUNDATION, VADODARA

69B of the Act and also erred in holding and directing the Id. AO that the said amount be taxed on protective basis the hands of Shri Pravinchandra Patel and also in the hands of all the directors of the appellant as their joint and several liabilities. (.Para 39.2 and 39.3 on page 127/128

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA vs. NEOTECH EDUCATION FOUNDATION, VADODARA

69B of the Act and also erred in holding and directing the Id. AO that the said amount be taxed on protective basis the hands of Shri Pravinchandra Patel and also in the hands of all the directors of the appellant as their joint and several liabilities. (.Para 39.2 and 39.3 on page 127/128

B.PATEL INFRASTRUCTURRE PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT.,MEHSANA RANGE,, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

69B of the Act under identical circumstances of the case after making observations that (a) the stock statement showing inflated I.T.A Nos. 2369 & 2472/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 7 B. Patel Infrastructure vs. Jt. CIT quantity and value of stock was furnished to the banking authorities to avail more credit facilities; (b) the stocks were hypothecated and not pledged

ADINATH LEASING AND FINANCE P LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Memebr & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr

disallowance under S.14A r.w. Rule 8D. In view of the above, we concur the decision of the lower authorities and dismiss this ground of appeal. 7. Now, assessee has come before us by way of second appeal. The lower authorities have made addition of Rs. 34 Lakhs only on the ground that proper registration has not been taken place before

INCOME TAX OFFICER, 1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SHWETA MANISH JAIN, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance under section 14A had been made, the ground was infructuous. 5. The Department is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) allowing the appeal of the assessee. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. 7. In view of the above facts, the material brought on record, and the detailed

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-5,, BHAVNAGAR vs. M/S. KIRAN SHIP BREAKING COMPANY,, BHAVNAGAR

Appeal is dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia& Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 69, 69A, 69B or 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as held by the Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of M/s Fashion World v/s ACIT (ITA No.1634/Ahd/2006 dated 12th February, 2010, a copy of order enclosed herewith). As 'stock' itself do not yield income unless same is converted through sale, the appellant firm had shown excess

SHREE INFRASTRUCTURE,VADOADARA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1563/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2014-15 Shree Infrastructure, D.C.I.T., Sthapatya-2, Vs. Circle-1(2), Behind Keya Motors, Vadodara. Tp-13, Vadodara-390002. Pan: Acifs6977Q

section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D of the Act. The learned CIT-A also held that all the case law relied by the assessee pertain to period before 2013- 14 therefore distinguishable on fact. Thus the learned CIT-A confirmed the disallowances