ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 HELD THAT: Once the IT(SS)A No. 73/Ahd/2025 and others Group Appeals - HK Ispat Pvt Ltd Asst.Year : 2015-16 to 2021-2022 - 33– repayment of the loan received is established, then the genuineness cannot be doubted. In this respect we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court

H K ISPAT PVT. LTD.,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 HELD THAT: Once the IT(SS)A No. 73/Ahd/2025 and others Group Appeals - HK Ispat Pvt Ltd Asst.Year : 2015-16 to 2021-2022 - 33– repayment of the loan received is established, then the genuineness cannot be doubted. In this respect we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 HELD THAT: Once the IT(SS)A No. 73/Ahd/2025 and others Group Appeals - HK Ispat Pvt Ltd Asst.Year : 2015-16 to 2021-2022 - 33– repayment of the loan received is established, then the genuineness cannot be doubted. In this respect we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court

SHRI NARENDRA B. PATEL,,SABARKANTHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, HIMATNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3153/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Narendra B. Patel, I.T.O., 592, Pampaliva Vas, Vs. Ward-2, Moyad, Himatnagar. Sabarkantha-383110. Pan: Asupp6989M

cash deposit of Rs. 3.2 lakh and transfer of funds from other bank account. The sources of these funds are not clear and the appellant has MOT given any information regarding these funds. Though the person holds a PAN no details regarding filing of returns are available on record. The depositor is apparently not filing his return of income

THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. EAM FRUITS LLP, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1835/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2016-2017 I.T.O, Eam Fruits Llp, Ward-7(2)(2), Vs. 23, New Fruit Market, Ahmedabad. Naroda Road, Naroda, Ahmedabad-380025. Pan: Aadfe6711B

disallowance towards unexplained cash credit is justified as the primary onus u/s 68 is duly discharged by the Appellant. The case

ACIT, CIRCLE-3(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KRAFT LAMINATE, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Years : 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Kraft Laminate, Income-Tax, Vs C/O. Laxmi Timber, Nr. Circle 3(2), Ahmedabad Mahalaxmi Textile Mill, Opp. Rajbai Patel Timber Market, Narol Naroda Highway, Narol, Ahmedabad-382405 Pan : Aamfk 8120 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-:

unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Act. Ground No.2 of the Revenue’s appeal is accordingly dismissed. 11. The issue raised in Ground No.3 relates to the deletion by the learned CIT(A) of the addition of Rs.4,72,176/- made by the Assessing Officer by way of disallowance

ARVINDKUMAR AMULKH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (3), AHMEADABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

disallowance of alleged fictitious commodity losses of transactions made through NMCE Platform. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) following the appellate order rendered by him for A.Y. 2009-10 rightly held in Para 6.8 on Page 68 of the appellate order that the facts related to the additions of Rs.53,00,000/- being unsecured loan treated as unexplained cash credits

ABHAYKUMAR SEVANTILAL SANGHAVI,DEESA vs. OLD JURISDICTION- CIRCLE,PALANPUR NEW JURISDICTION-CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1367/Ahd/2024 & 1368/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Abhaykumar Sevantilal Acit Circle, Palanpur बनाम/ Sanghavi [Old Jurisdiction-Circle, V/S. Sanghavi Brothers Palanpur. 1St Floor, Swastik Bldg New Jurisdiction-Circle, Nr. City Police Station Gandhinagar.] Nr. Dena Bank, Main Bazar Deesa – 385 535 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afbps 1660 L (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Pertain To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2016-17 & 2017-18. Since The Issues Involved Are Common & Connected, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. The Appeals Arise Out Of The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The

Disallowance Rs. 38,36,692/- Rs. 44,06,456/- Unexplained Cash Credits (Sec. 68) Rs. 16,50,000/- Rs. 12,50,000/- Disallowance

ABHAYKUMAR SEVANTILAL SANGHAVI,DEESA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE- PALANPUR , PALANPUR

Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1367/Ahd/2024 & 1368/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Abhaykumar Sevantilal Acit Circle, Palanpur बनाम/ Sanghavi [Old Jurisdiction-Circle, V/S. Sanghavi Brothers Palanpur. 1St Floor, Swastik Bldg New Jurisdiction-Circle, Nr. City Police Station Gandhinagar.] Nr. Dena Bank, Main Bazar Deesa – 385 535 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afbps 1660 L (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Pertain To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2016-17 & 2017-18. Since The Issues Involved Are Common & Connected, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. The Appeals Arise Out Of The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The

Disallowance Rs. 38,36,692/- Rs. 44,06,456/- Unexplained Cash Credits (Sec. 68) Rs. 16,50,000/- Rs. 12,50,000/- Disallowance

M/S. PRAMUKH COTPRESS INDIA PVT. LTD.,,SABARKANTHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, S.K.WARD- 2,, HIMATNAGAR

unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act in respect of share capital without taking into consideration the continued non-compliance by the assessee during the assessment proceedings and considering the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has not given any opportunity to the AO to verify the rejoinder submitted by the assessee on remand report submitted

JADE GRANITES INDUSTRIES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Which Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 23-11-2023 In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1058173176(1)

disallowance. Probably, the Tribunal while issuing direction did not notice its reasoning in the earlier part of its very same order. That is how a direction in the aforesaid manner is issued, which is not correct. Therefore, in addition to what has been stated by the Tribunal the assessing authority shall first find out, whether the cash credit claimed represents

FURNISH HOME,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1) OLD WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the asessee is allowed, whereas, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

Credits in the bank account other than cash deposits remaining unexplained Rs.51,00,241/- iii. Import payments and custom duties disallowed

INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3)(1),AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. FURNISH HOME, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the asessee is allowed, whereas, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), wherein detailed submissions supported by the books of accounts, statutory returns, confirmation and other documentary evidences were filed. A remand report of the AO was sought on the same by the Ld. CIT(A) after considering which, Ld. CIT(A) deleted

Credits in the bank account other than cash deposits remaining unexplained Rs.51,00,241/- iii. Import payments and custom duties disallowed

CRYSTAL CERAMICS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

unexplained cash credit u/s.68 r.w.s.115BBE of the Act, amounting to Rs.4,27,75,00/-, without considering the facts that the assessee company received the amount of Rs.1,45,75,000/- from M/s. Biraj Manimpex Pvt. Ltd., Rs.1,44,00,000/- from M/s Boston Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.1,38,00,000/- from M/s. Vansh Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd., Which

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. CRYSTAL CERAMIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

unexplained cash credit u/s.68 r.w.s.115BBE of the Act, amounting to Rs.4,27,75,00/-, without considering the facts that the assessee company received the amount of Rs.1,45,75,000/- from M/s. Biraj Manimpex Pvt. Ltd., Rs.1,44,00,000/- from M/s Boston Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.1,38,00,000/- from M/s. Vansh Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd., Which

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. CRYSTAL CERAMIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

unexplained cash credit u/s.68 r.w.s.115BBE of the Act, amounting to Rs.4,27,75,00/-, without considering the facts that the assessee company received the amount of Rs.1,45,75,000/- from M/s. Biraj Manimpex Pvt. Ltd., Rs.1,44,00,000/- from M/s Boston Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.1,38,00,000/- from M/s. Vansh Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd., Which

THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. GAJANAND DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. " 2) "that the Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and on the facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 20,46,990/- on account of disallowance

FIREFLY ENERGY LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 2871/Ahd/2016 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Firefly Energy Limited, Income Tax Officer, 14. Pahelgaon Bunglow, Vs. Ward-2(1)(3), Judges Bungalow Road, Ahmedabad. Vastrapura, Ahmedabad. C/O. Mehta Lodha & Co. Chartered Accountants, 105, Sakar-1, Near Gandhi Gram Rly. Station, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aabca6692E

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The Ld. AR to this effect relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of the PCIT v/s Aditya Birla reported in 178 taxman 418. 19. On the other hand, the Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 20. We have heard