VIKAS VIJAY GUPTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby\ndismissed

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nITA No. 404/Ahd/2024\nAssessment Year 2017-18\nVikas Vijay Gupta\nPrincipal Commissioner\n604 Sarap,\nof Income Tax,\nOpp. Navjivan Press Vs Ahmedabad-1,\nP.O. Navjivan,\nAhmedabad\nAhmedabad-380014,\nGujarat\n(Respondent)\nPAN: AEOPG6723L\n(Appellant)\nAssessee Represented: Shri Jaimin Shah, A.R.\nRevenue Represented: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT-DR\nDate of hearing : 27-02-2025\nDate of pronouncement : 27-05-2025\nआदे

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has rendered, the assessment order\nerroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The relevant\nfinding of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court is reproduced as under:\n"5. We have heard Shri A.N. Mahajan, the learned Standing Counsel\nfor the Revenue and Shri Rishi Raj Kapoor, leamed counsel

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

200 cases, but most of the notices returned unserved. Even cases where notices were served, compliances were made in only 3 ca.ses and they too could not prove their credit-worthiness. No one appeared to depose for recording of statements. Their credit-worthiness could not be established from the records where in some cases ITR were filed. In many cases

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

200 cases, but most of the notices returned unserved. Even cases where notices were served, compliances were made in only 3 ca.ses and they too could not prove their credit-worthiness. No one appeared to depose for recording of statements. Their credit-worthiness could not be established from the records where in some cases ITR were filed. In many cases

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

200 cases, but most of the notices returned unserved. Even cases where notices were served, compliances were made in only 3 ca.ses and they too could not prove their credit-worthiness. No one appeared to depose for recording of statements. Their credit-worthiness could not be established from the records where in some cases ITR were filed. In many cases

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

200 cases, but most of the notices returned unserved. Even cases where notices were served, compliances were made in only 3 ca.ses and they too could not prove their credit-worthiness. No one appeared to depose for recording of statements. Their credit-worthiness could not be established from the records where in some cases ITR were filed. In many cases

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

200 cases, but most of the notices returned unserved. Even cases where notices were served, compliances were made in only 3 ca.ses and they too could not prove their credit-worthiness. No one appeared to depose for recording of statements. Their credit-worthiness could not be established from the records where in some cases ITR were filed. In many cases

GUJARAT RAJPUT HITWARDHAK MANDAL,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-EXEMPTION, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2016-17. I.T.A No. 1469/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 2 Gujarat Rajput Hitwardhak Mandal vs. ITO 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust

SMT. MAYA K. DHARWANI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2094/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. Maya K. Dharwani The Income Tax Officer Block No.88, B Ward बनाम/ Ward-7(2)(3) Opp. Railway Station Ahmedabad V/S. Kuber Nagar Ahmedabad - 382 340 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aefpd 1506 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) ….. "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divatia, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. Facts of the case: 3. The assessee is an individual having interest on loans and income from house property as main source of income. The assessee filed her return of income

SHRI NAGIN A VAGHELA,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

271(1)(b) was sent on May 8, 2015, to which the assessee did not reply. The Assessing Officer made several queries regarding cash deposits in various bank accounts, but the assessee failed to provide any explanation. On August 20, 2015, the Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice under section 276C(1), indicating potential prosecution for willful tax evasion

SHRI NAGIN A VAGHELA,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

271(1)(b) was sent on May 8, 2015, to which the assessee did not reply. The Assessing Officer made several queries regarding cash deposits in various bank accounts, but the assessee failed to provide any explanation. On August 20, 2015, the Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice under section 276C(1), indicating potential prosecution for willful tax evasion

MANSHA TEXTILES PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13 Mansha Textiles P. Ltd. The Ito, Ward-2(1)(1) 1, Vikram Society Vadodara. Gotri Road, Vadodara Pan : Aadcm 0191 J (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Ms.Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

200/-; The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. Rs.4,56,690/- with TDS Rs.45,669/-; Thomas Cook India Ltd. Rs.5,82,384/- with TDS Rs.58,236/-; Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. Rs.5,62,905/- with TDS Rs.56,289/-; and Axis Bank Ltd. Rs.30,33,871/- with TDS Rs.3,03,387/-. The AO noted that, in contrast, the assessee’s Profit and Loss account

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SHARANAM REALITY PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271(1)(c) of the Act, respectively. 2. As the facts involved in the two appeals are common, both the matters were heard together and are being disposed of vide this common order for the sake of convenience. We will first take up the quantum appeal in ITA No.1838/Ahd/2025. ITA Nos.1838 & 1839/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) ITO vs. Sharanam Reality

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 411 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SHARANAM REALITY PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271(1)(c) of the Act, respectively. 2. As the facts involved in the two appeals are common, both the matters were heard together and are being disposed of vide this common order for the sake of convenience. We will first take up the quantum appeal in ITA No.1838/Ahd/2025. ITA Nos.1838 & 1839/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) ITO vs. Sharanam Reality

RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

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

u/s 147 26.03.2022 26.03.2022 r.w.s. 144B of the Act Assessed Income in Rs. 97,67,63,690/- 88,75,24,230/ - Addition Made by AO invoking 97,53,07,845/- 88,66,48,200/ provisions of section 68 /69A in - Rs. Date of CIT(A)'s Common Order 25.04.2022 25.04.2022 Additions Confirmed

MANISH RANJAN, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAWAN ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA, ELLISBRIDGE AHMEDABAD GUJARAT

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

u/s 147 26.03.2022 26.03.2022 r.w.s. 144B of the Act Assessed Income in Rs. 97,67,63,690/- 88,75,24,230/ - Addition Made by AO invoking 97,53,07,845/- 88,66,48,200/ provisions of section 68 /69A in - Rs. Date of CIT(A)'s Common Order 25.04.2022 25.04.2022 Additions Confirmed

RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

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

u/s 147 26.03.2022 26.03.2022 r.w.s. 144B of the Act Assessed Income in Rs. 97,67,63,690/- 88,75,24,230/ - Addition Made by AO invoking 97,53,07,845/- 88,66,48,200/ provisions of section 68 /69A in - Rs. Date of CIT(A)'s Common Order 25.04.2022 25.04.2022 Additions Confirmed

MANISH RANJAN, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA, AHMEDABAD

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

u/s 147 26.03.2022 26.03.2022 r.w.s. 144B of the Act Assessed Income in Rs. 97,67,63,690/- 88,75,24,230/ - Addition Made by AO invoking 97,53,07,845/- 88,66,48,200/ provisions of section 68 /69A in - Rs. Date of CIT(A)'s Common Order 25.04.2022 25.04.2022 Additions Confirmed

VARIS MAHENDRABHAI DOSHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s. 147 of the act? Further, appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw all or any ground of appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, did not file his return of income for Assessment Year 2011–12. Based on information available in the Non-Filer Monitoring System (NMS) and AIR data

DEENDAYAL PORT AUTHORITY,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, EXEMPTION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.813/Ahd/2024 & 846/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Respectively

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal. ITA No.813 & 846/Ahd/2024 Deendayal Port Authority vs. The DCIT, Circle-2 Exemption Asst. Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 respectively