JAY BUILDCON. ,KADI vs. THE DCIT, MEHSANAS CIRCLE,, MEHSANA

133A was conducted at office premises of the scheme viz. “Raj Ratna Godown” on 11.1.2013. During the course of survey certain documents were found and impounded and inventorised as annexure-A/1. Further on the basis of material available, the statement of the partner assessee-firm/main person Shri Jayantibhai A. Patel was recorded. In the statement recorded, the partner

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

House. Opp. Ahmedabad Gujarat High Court, ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015 and 5 others A.Y. 2010-11 2 S.G. Highway, Gota, Ahmedabad- 380061. PAN : AAACL4089R (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.R Revenue by : Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 02/02/2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1) (2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

House. Opp. Ahmedabad Gujarat High Court, ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015 and 5 others A.Y. 2010-11 2 S.G. Highway, Gota, Ahmedabad- 380061. PAN : AAACL4089R (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.R Revenue by : Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 02/02/2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

House. Opp. Ahmedabad Gujarat High Court, ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015 and 5 others A.Y. 2010-11 2 S.G. Highway, Gota, Ahmedabad- 380061. PAN : AAACL4089R (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.R Revenue by : Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 02/02/2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

House. Opp. Ahmedabad Gujarat High Court, ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015 and 5 others A.Y. 2010-11 2 S.G. Highway, Gota, Ahmedabad- 380061. PAN : AAACL4089R (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.R Revenue by : Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 02/02/2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

House. Opp. Ahmedabad Gujarat High Court, ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015 and 5 others A.Y. 2010-11 2 S.G. Highway, Gota, Ahmedabad- 380061. PAN : AAACL4089R (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.R Revenue by : Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 02/02/2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

House. Opp. Ahmedabad Gujarat High Court, ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015 and 5 others A.Y. 2010-11 2 S.G. Highway, Gota, Ahmedabad- 380061. PAN : AAACL4089R (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.R Revenue by : Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 02/02/2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date

M/S. PUSHKAR CORPORATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2213-2214/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 M/S. Pushkar Corporation, D.C.I.T., 27, Nakshatra Arcade, Vs. Central Circle-1(4), Ioc Road, Ahmedabad. Chandkheda, Ahmedabad. C/O. M.S. Chhajed & Co. “Kamal Shanti” Besides Bank Of Baroda, Nr. Sardar Patel Under Bridge, Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aalep1840Q & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2345-2346/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S. Pushkar Corporation, Central Circle-1(4), Vs. 27, Nakshatra Arcade, Ahmedabad. Ioc Road, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad. C/O. M.S. Chhajed & Co. “Kamal Shanti” Besides Bank Of Baroda, Nr. Sardar Patel Under Bridge, Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aalep1840Q

133A of the Act at the premises of the assessee but no document representing the receipt of on money was found. Thus, it was contended by the learned AR that no addition of whatsoever is warranted in the present case. 18. On the contrary, the learned DR before us submitted that the addition was made by the AO based

M/S. PUSHKAR CORPORATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2213-2214/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 M/S. Pushkar Corporation, D.C.I.T., 27, Nakshatra Arcade, Vs. Central Circle-1(4), Ioc Road, Ahmedabad. Chandkheda, Ahmedabad. C/O. M.S. Chhajed & Co. “Kamal Shanti” Besides Bank Of Baroda, Nr. Sardar Patel Under Bridge, Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aalep1840Q & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2345-2346/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S. Pushkar Corporation, Central Circle-1(4), Vs. 27, Nakshatra Arcade, Ahmedabad. Ioc Road, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad. C/O. M.S. Chhajed & Co. “Kamal Shanti” Besides Bank Of Baroda, Nr. Sardar Patel Under Bridge, Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aalep1840Q

133A of the Act at the premises of the assessee but no document representing the receipt of on money was found. Thus, it was contended by the learned AR that no addition of whatsoever is warranted in the present case. 18. On the contrary, the learned DR before us submitted that the addition was made by the AO based

ITO-WD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. AVS CORPORATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

housing project. The Assessing Officer was also of the opinion that the assessee firm was involved in availing accommodation entries through entry operators. Based on the evidences found during the search/survey, the Assessing Officer concluded that the receipts recorded by the Shri Gautam shah in the excel sheet found from his pen drive were nothing but unaccounted cash receipts

ITO-WD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. AVS CORPORATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

housing project. The Assessing Officer was also of the opinion that the assessee firm was involved in availing accommodation entries through entry operators. Based on the evidences found during the search/survey, the Assessing Officer concluded that the receipts recorded by the Shri Gautam shah in the excel sheet found from his pen drive were nothing but unaccounted cash receipts

ITO-WD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. AVS CORPORATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

housing project. The Assessing Officer was also of the opinion that the assessee firm was involved in availing accommodation entries through entry operators. Based on the evidences found during the search/survey, the Assessing Officer concluded that the receipts recorded by the Shri Gautam shah in the excel sheet found from his pen drive were nothing but unaccounted cash receipts

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.

Property being Land and building in AY-2015-16 and 2016-17. Year wise detailed breakup of payment/ investment and The DCIT, Cent.Cir.Vs.Shaligram Infra Projects LLP (6 Appeals) 4 reference of seized incriminating material, on the basis of which the Special Auditor calculated such out of books investment to the extent of Rs.60,85,42,590/- the on-money payment

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

133A was carried ITA Nos.248 to 250/Ahd/2023 & 325&326/Ahd/2023 Sai Krupa Developers vs. ACIT & ACIT vs. Sai Krupa Developers Asst. Years –2014-15, 2016-17 & 2019-20 - 3– out on 30.10.2018 at the business premises of the assessee at 418, Gala Empire, Ahmedabad in connection with the development of industrial plots done by the assessee for Sankalp Group. Further

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

133A was carried ITA Nos.248 to 250/Ahd/2023 & 325&326/Ahd/2023 Sai Krupa Developers vs. ACIT & ACIT vs. Sai Krupa Developers Asst. Years –2014-15, 2016-17 & 2019-20 - 3– out on 30.10.2018 at the business premises of the assessee at 418, Gala Empire, Ahmedabad in connection with the development of industrial plots done by the assessee for Sankalp Group. Further

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

133A was carried ITA Nos.248 to 250/Ahd/2023 & 325&326/Ahd/2023 Sai Krupa Developers vs. ACIT & ACIT vs. Sai Krupa Developers Asst. Years –2014-15, 2016-17 & 2019-20 - 3– out on 30.10.2018 at the business premises of the assessee at 418, Gala Empire, Ahmedabad in connection with the development of industrial plots done by the assessee for Sankalp Group. Further

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

133A was carried ITA Nos.248 to 250/Ahd/2023 & 325&326/Ahd/2023 Sai Krupa Developers vs. ACIT & ACIT vs. Sai Krupa Developers Asst. Years –2014-15, 2016-17 & 2019-20 - 3– out on 30.10.2018 at the business premises of the assessee at 418, Gala Empire, Ahmedabad in connection with the development of industrial plots done by the assessee for Sankalp Group. Further

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

133A was carried ITA Nos.248 to 250/Ahd/2023 & 325&326/Ahd/2023 Sai Krupa Developers vs. ACIT & ACIT vs. Sai Krupa Developers Asst. Years –2014-15, 2016-17 & 2019-20 - 3– out on 30.10.2018 at the business premises of the assessee at 418, Gala Empire, Ahmedabad in connection with the development of industrial plots done by the assessee for Sankalp Group. Further