SHRI BHAGWANBHAI RANCHHODBHAI MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

cash was re-deposited after carrying out necessary verification. Accordingly, ground no. 2 of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Ground No. 4 (ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 84,000/- and addition of Rs. 23,032/- in respect of income from house property

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI R. MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

cash was re-deposited after carrying out necessary verification. Accordingly, ground no. 2 of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Ground No. 4 (ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 84,000/- and addition of Rs. 23,032/- in respect of income from house property

DIPAK BALUBHAI PATEL - HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

House Property and Income from Other Sources. The assessee filed his Return of Income for the Asst. Year 2017-18 on 11-08-2017 declaring total income of Rs.5,73,170/-. The return was taken up for scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee in his Account with Bank of Baroda deposited a sum of Rs.10

SURESHBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL,VADODARA vs. ITO - WARD 1(2)(5), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 255-256/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-13 Sureshbhai Prabhudas Patel, D.C.I.T. Opp Parbadi Padra Road, Vs. Central Circle-2(1) Samiyala Village, Ahmedabad. Vadodara-390002. Pan: Atypp6249H

cash but to invest in construction or any purchase of the property and if such investment is made within the period stipulated therein, then Section 54F(4) is not at all attracted and therefore the contention that the assessee has not deposited the amount in the Bank account as stipulated and therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit even

SURESHBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL,VADODARA vs. ITO - WARD 1(2)(5), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 255-256/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-13 Sureshbhai Prabhudas Patel, D.C.I.T. Opp Parbadi Padra Road, Vs. Central Circle-2(1) Samiyala Village, Ahmedabad. Vadodara-390002. Pan: Atypp6249H

cash but to invest in construction or any purchase of the property and if such investment is made within the period stipulated therein, then Section 54F(4) is not at all attracted and therefore the contention that the assessee has not deposited the amount in the Bank account as stipulated and therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit even

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

cash deposit in the bank and the amount of capital contribution in the partnership firm. The assessee in response to such questionnaire has offered the income of ₹ 65 lakhs so as to justify the source of deposits in the bank for ₹ 15.55 lakhs and the amount of capital contribution in the partnership firm of ₹ 55.17 lakhs and paid due taxes

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

cash deposit in the bank and the amount of capital contribution in the partnership firm. The assessee in response to such questionnaire has offered the income of ₹ 65 lakhs so as to justify the source of deposits in the bank for ₹ 15.55 lakhs and the amount of capital contribution in the partnership firm of ₹ 55.17 lakhs and paid due taxes

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

cash deposit in the bank and the amount of capital contribution in the partnership firm. The assessee in response to such questionnaire has offered the income of ₹ 65 lakhs so as to justify the source of deposits in the bank for ₹ 15.55 lakhs and the amount of capital contribution in the partnership firm of ₹ 55.17 lakhs and paid due taxes

PRASHANT CHANDULAL PARIKH, HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 369/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) बनाम/ Prashant Chandulal Assistant Commissioner Of Parikh, Huf Income Tax Vs. C/O M/S. Chandulal J Circle 5(2)(1), Ahmedabad Parikh, 303 Ushadep Complex, Nr. Navrangpura, Railway Crossing, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad 380009 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadhp9467M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Rajendera K Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/11/2024 /11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement

cash deposits made during demonetization period. In the course of assessment, the ITA No. 369/Ahd/2024 [Prashant Chandulal Parikh, HUF vs. ACIT] A.Y. 2017-18 - 2 – AO found that the assessee had sold agricultural land along with his two brothers, on which capital gain was disclosed in the return. It was found that the cost of acquisition of the land

THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE, MEHSANA vs. SHRI UMESH VADILAL KHAMAR, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

house property. Vide appellate order dated 17.12.2018, the addition of Rs.51,60,000/- was confirmed whereas the addition of Rs.26,60,000/- was deleted for the reason that it was the outgoing investment from the incoming undisclosed income of Rs.51,60,000/-. In the case of Shri Rajnikant V. Khamar, who was acting as commission agent and not involved

VINEETSINGH GULABSINGH RORE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

deposited in the bank, cash received in the trading activity and cash expenses/payments towards various expenses for the purpose of business for the previous years ending on 31.03.2016 and 31.03.2017 together with the due analysis of accounts for both the previous years. f) The A.O. will also examine the sources of investment in the house property

NARANBHAI SAMATBHAI BHARWAD THROUGH LEGAL HEIR DEVRAJBHAI NARANBHAI BHARWAD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Tr Senthil Kumar

property is Asst.Year 2017-18 - 3– not known. Furthermore, the appellant has not adduced any shred of cogent credible and contemporaneous evidence in support of the cash flow statement it has furnished for the period 2012-13 to 2015-16. During appeal no cash flow statement for the period 01.04.2016 to 08.11.2016 was adduced. The appellant is showing huge amount

SMT. BINDIYA SANJAYKUMAR SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in IT(SS)A No

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

house property and other sources. There was a search action u/s. 132 on 12-02-2015 in Cube Group cases and also that of the assessee. Pursuant to the search action, assessee was served with notice u/s. 153A on 03-09-2015. In response, the assessee filed Return of Income on 18-12-2015 declaring total income of Rs.63

MR. ARPANBHAI VIRAMBHAI DESAI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed in above terms

deposit of Rs.2,00,700/-, cash paid for the\nproperty purchased Rs.1,97,72,487/- and the total DA amount\nRs.3,02,86,472/-. This is the entire information regarding the\ndisproportionate assets of the assessee which the reason reveals\nand we have noted that the AO mentions that on perusal and\nanalysis of the information collected / materials available, there

SHRI ARVINDBHAI POPATLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Memebr

Hous. Soc. Building, Ashram Road, Ltd., Nr. Balaji Villa, S. P. Ahmedabad - 380009 Ring Road, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad - 382424 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ADRPP2567K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri S. N. Divatia, AR Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent by : 02/06/2022 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing घोषणा

BHANUMATI MICHAEL SCRIBE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, INTL.TAXATION-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2017-18

house hold expenses and also that due to the medical exigencies in her family she required cash in hand and the deposit in the Bank account are in consonance with the withdrawal. After taking cognisance of the same, the Assessing Officer made addition under Section 69A of the Act thereby deeming the cash deposited in the account of Canara Bank

LAXMANJI JAVANJI DODIYA,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, ANAND

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2022-23

deposited in bank account without considering the fact that opening cash balance as on 01.04.2021 was Rs.10,11,083.12 as per copy of Cash Book. 2) The Ld. CIT (Appeal) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.3,81,200/- in the income of House Property

SHRI RAMSANGBHAI BACHUBHAI SOLANKI,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(3), , AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Years : 2011-12 Shri Ramsangbhai Bachubhai Solanki, Income-Tax Officer, 299, Rajput Vas, Darbar Vas, Vs Ward 7(3), Rethal, Tal: Sanand, Ahmedabad Dist. Ahmedabad- 382210 Pan : Bwgps 3056 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-:

cash deposit or investment in property to the extent of at least Rs.80,00,000/-, the source of which has remained unexplained in A.Y.2011-12. In view of these facts, the addition made by the AO in assessment order vide para 3 & 4 of Rs.84,19,000/- is found to be correct. The appellant has tried to confuse the issue