SHRI KALPESH BHUPENDRABHAI BRAHAMBHATT,,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2), NOW WARD-3(1)(2),, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1990/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 Kalpesh Bhupendrabhai Vs. Ito, Brahambhatt, Ward – 5(2), Baroda, B/12, Mrudand Park Society, Now 3(1)(2), B/H. Bright School, Vip Road, Vadodara. Karelibaug, Vadodara – 390 018. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Apoorva Bhardwaj, Sr.D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Vadodara [“Cit(A)” In Short] Relevant To Assessment Year 2011- 12. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Revised Grounds Of Appeal Vide Letter Dated 6Th August, 2018 Which Are Reproduced As Under: “1. The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Not Admitting The Additional Evidences Filed In Support Of The Appellant'S Claim Against The Additions Made In The Assessment. The Hon'Ble Tribunal Be Pleased To Admit The Same & Allow Necessary Reliefs. 2. The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. A.O. In Holding That An Amount Of Rs.22,71,343/- Received In The Course Of Business Of Plying Of Motor Trucks Was To Be Assessed U/S. 56 Of The It Act & That No Further Allowance Of Expenditure From The Same Could Be Allowed.

unexplained money of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. Thus, the AO disallowed the same and added to the total income of the assessee. 11. The aggrieved assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT-A and submitted that the entries of Rs. 1,35,000/- and 2,50,000/- are representing the money receipt against the sale

RAKESHKUMAR MAHENDRAKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee stand dismissed, and the order of the CIT(Appeals) is hereby affirmed in toto

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

House (admitted by the assessee), Rs. 50,00,000/- from Rancharda Land, and Rs.1,81,75,387/- from Mulsana Land. The balance Rs. 12,22,36,163/- was held to be unexplained money or investment. The total assessed income was assessed at Rs.14,73,11,550/-, and penalty proceedings under sections 271AAB and 270A were initiated. 5. In appeal before

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RAKESHKUMAR MAHENDRAKUMAR SHAH , AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee stand dismissed, and the order of the CIT(Appeals) is hereby affirmed in toto

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

House (admitted by the assessee), Rs. 50,00,000/- from Rancharda Land, and Rs.1,81,75,387/- from Mulsana Land. The balance Rs. 12,22,36,163/- was held to be unexplained money or investment. The total assessed income was assessed at Rs.14,73,11,550/-, and penalty proceedings under sections 271AAB and 270A were initiated. 5. In appeal before

KHYATI DILIPKUMAR DAVE,DUBAI vs. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1,INT.TAX.,AHM, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT,INDIA

In the result, Ground No. 1 with respect to the aforesaid addition is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

money u/s.69A of the Act. It was further noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had made investment in Birla Sun Life Mutual Fund of Rs. 21,586/-, but the assessee failed to explain source of such investment. Therefore, the Assessing Officer treated the said investment as unexplained investment and made addition of Rs. 21,586/- on account

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Housing Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai), the Hon'ble ITAT held "Thus, the net income element embedded in the on-money receipts could safely be taken in the case of the captioned assessee 15% of the amount of the on-money receipts, and the same were in the ITA Nos.1450&1451 and 1562&1563/Ahd/2024 (By Revenue) DCIT vs. Hindva

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Housing Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai), the Hon'ble ITAT held "Thus, the net income element embedded in the on-money receipts could safely be taken in the case of the captioned assessee 15% of the amount of the on-money receipts, and the same were in the ITA Nos.1450&1451 and 1562&1563/Ahd/2024 (By Revenue) DCIT vs. Hindva

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Housing Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai), the Hon'ble ITAT held "Thus, the net income element embedded in the on-money receipts could safely be taken in the case of the captioned assessee 15% of the amount of the on-money receipts, and the same were in the ITA Nos.1450&1451 and 1562&1563/Ahd/2024 (By Revenue) DCIT vs. Hindva

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Housing Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai), the Hon'ble ITAT held "Thus, the net income element embedded in the on-money receipts could safely be taken in the case of the captioned assessee 15% of the amount of the on-money receipts, and the same were in the ITA Nos.1450&1451 and 1562&1563/Ahd/2024 (By Revenue) DCIT vs. Hindva

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

ARDOR OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumaray Sl.

Housing Society Ltd. and the balance of Rs.36 crores was routed back through the proprietary concern of the director of AOPL i.e M/s. ITA Nos. 2785 & 2812/Ahd/2017 16 Cross Appeals : Ardor Overseas Pvt Ltd VS. DCIT and ITA No.206Ahd/2018- Nikshal Properties Pvt Ltd. AY : 2014-15 Matrix International, who in turn gave the money back to M/s. Ardor Overseas

NIKSHAL POPERTIES PVT. LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumaray Sl.

Housing Society Ltd. and the balance of Rs.36 crores was routed back through the proprietary concern of the director of AOPL i.e M/s. ITA Nos. 2785 & 2812/Ahd/2017 16 Cross Appeals : Ardor Overseas Pvt Ltd VS. DCIT and ITA No.206Ahd/2018- Nikshal Properties Pvt Ltd. AY : 2014-15 Matrix International, who in turn gave the money back to M/s. Ardor Overseas

ITO, WARD-1(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ARDOR OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumaray Sl.

Housing Society Ltd. and the balance of Rs.36 crores was routed back through the proprietary concern of the director of AOPL i.e M/s. ITA Nos. 2785 & 2812/Ahd/2017 16 Cross Appeals : Ardor Overseas Pvt Ltd VS. DCIT and ITA No.206Ahd/2018- Nikshal Properties Pvt Ltd. AY : 2014-15 Matrix International, who in turn gave the money back to M/s. Ardor Overseas

SHASHANK SHEKHAR SINGH,,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1),, BARODA

In the result, ITA No. 924/Ahd/2016 appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

House Property and other Sources. The assessee has not filed the Return of Income under 139(1) of the Act. Therefore a notice u/s. 148 was issued on 07.12.2012 and in response thereto the assessee filed its Return of Income declaring total income of Rs. 17,26,770/- and paid taxes of Rs. 4,66,323/- and claiming a refund

SHASHANK SHEKHAR SINGH,,NEW DELHI vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-7,, BARODA

In the result, ITA No. 924/Ahd/2016 appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

House Property and other Sources. The assessee has not filed the Return of Income under 139(1) of the Act. Therefore a notice u/s. 148 was issued on 07.12.2012 and in response thereto the assessee filed its Return of Income declaring total income of Rs. 17,26,770/- and paid taxes of Rs. 4,66,323/- and claiming a refund

THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. NISHANT CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Unexplained money (On money) - Assessee was engaged in construction and development of housing projects - It was subjected to survey operation during which certain documents were found and impounded - On basis of such documents, Assessing Officer came to conclusion that assessee had received on-money from sale of flats - He therefore, made certain addition to assessee's income - Tribunal, however, deleted

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#।]

Properties and projects Ltd. were purchased on 10/10/2014 at the cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- and were sold on 20/06/2017 for Rs. 9,97,500/- and similarly 50,000/- shares of Purple Enterprises limited were purchased at the cost of Rs. 9,41,250/- on 02.01.2015 and subsequently sold on 20.06.2017 for Rs. 14,41,250/-. It was submitted

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.”

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from 'other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money

TRUPTIBEN NILANGKUMAR TRIVEDI,ANAND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyaltruptiben Nilangkumar The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Trivedi, Ward-1, 2/A, Vivekanand Wadi, Anand. Opp Dena Parivar Society, Vidyanagar Road, Anand-388001. [Pan :Agipt7745 F] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Karan Sukhramani, Ar Respondent By: Shri Ravindra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.11.2025

unexplained money amounting to Rs. 9,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act, when no such addition is called for. 6. The appellant craves leave to add to alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. 3. The facts of the case is that, the property