M/S. DESCHEM TECHNOLOGICAL RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2),, BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1551/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2005-2006 M/S Deschem Technologies Resources I.T.O., Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ward-1(2), 106 To 108, Baroda. Shreeji Avenue, Opp. New India Mill, Jetapur Road, Baroda-390035. Pan: Aabcd7163P

u/s 68 of the Act to the tune of Rs.1, 18, 06.330/-although necessary conditions such as identity of the persons, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the persons advancing loans are fulfilled. While doing so, the Id CIT (Appeals) out rightly rejected the additional evidences furnished by the appellant although the same was covered by Rule 46A

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(4),, VADODARA vs. SHRI PRADEEPSHANKAR B. JHA,, VADODARA

In the result, ground no. 4 of Revenue ‘s appeal is dismissed

Section 250 permits the Commissioner (Appeals) to make such further inquiry as he thinks fit or may direct AO to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him before disposing of any appeal before him. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx As per Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 46A not withstanding anything contained in Rule 46A, Commissioner (Appeals) may direct production

THE ITO, WARD-2(4),, BARODA vs. SHRI PRADEEPSHANKAR B. JHA, BARODA

In the result, ground no. 4 of Revenue ‘s appeal is dismissed

Section 250 permits the Commissioner (Appeals) to make such further inquiry as he thinks fit or may direct AO to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him before disposing of any appeal before him. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx As per Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 46A not withstanding anything contained in Rule 46A, Commissioner (Appeals) may direct production

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2),, BARODA vs. SHRI PRADEEPSHANKAR B. JHA, BARODA

In the result, ground no. 4 of Revenue ‘s appeal is dismissed

Section 250 permits the Commissioner (Appeals) to make such further inquiry as he thinks fit or may direct AO to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him before disposing of any appeal before him. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx As per Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 46A not withstanding anything contained in Rule 46A, Commissioner (Appeals) may direct production

MAYUR NIRMALKUMAR JAIN,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealing income. 6. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the additions with the following observations: “7.3 After considering findings of the AO and submissions of the appellant, this ground is adjudicated as under. It is seen that during the assessment proceedings the AO noted that

VISHWAS COMODITY,PATAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PATAN

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2013-14

Penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c), 271F, and 271(1)(b) were also separately initiated. 5. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), which was also dismissed ex parte by order dated 17.05.2024. The CIT(A) recorded that the appeal was filed with a delay of 77 days, which was condoned on the basis of reasonable cause

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SANJAY KISHANLAL BISHNOI,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. (Addition of Rs. 1,80,69,095/-)” AYs:2014-15 & 2015-16 Sh. Sanjay Kishanlal Bishnoi 4.4 The AO on examination of the details, material, SCN , concluded that the assessee was involved in the undervaluation of imports. The assessee was having understanding with the supplier wherein

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SANJAY KISHANLAL BISHNOI,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. (Addition of Rs. 1,80,69,095/-)” AYs:2014-15 & 2015-16 Sh. Sanjay Kishanlal Bishnoi 4.4 The AO on examination of the details, material, SCN , concluded that the assessee was involved in the undervaluation of imports. The assessee was having understanding with the supplier wherein

HEMLATA VISHNUBHAI GUPTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD--(3)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

271(1)(c) of the Act and Section 271F of the Act for failure to furnish the return of income. 3. Aggrieved against the ex-parte assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-5 Ahmedabad. The main contention of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) was that the Assessing officer erred in making addition

KETAN ARVINDBHAI PATEL,SOJITRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2, ANAND

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) read with Section 274 dated 13.10.2018 was issued by the AO to the assessee , but the assessee did not reply to the said show cause notice. Further a reminder was issued by the Assessing Officer on 14-11-2018 , but the assessee did not respond to the said reminder notice also. Finally, the show cause

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2010-11 and ITA No. 2878/Ahd/2017 is filed by the Assessee against the order dated 09.12.2015 passed by the Commissioner of I.T.A No. 924/Ahd/2016 & 2878/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 2 Shashank Shekharsingh vs. DCIT Income

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2010-11 and ITA No. 2878/Ahd/2017 is filed by the Assessee against the order dated 09.12.2015 passed by the Commissioner of I.T.A No. 924/Ahd/2016 & 2878/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 2 Shashank Shekharsingh vs. DCIT Income

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI UMANG HIRALAL THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

u/s. 46A without considering the A.O’s objection that none of the conditions mentioned under that Rule was satisfied. 2. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,89,19,363/- and Rs. 69,88,121/- made on account of unexplained capital and unexplained cash credits, respectively without considering the factual

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI UMANG H. THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

u/s. 46A without considering the A.O’s objection that none of the conditions mentioned under that Rule was satisfied. 2. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,89,19,363/- and Rs. 69,88,121/- made on account of unexplained capital and unexplained cash credits, respectively without considering the factual

SHRI UMANG HIRALAL THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

u/s. 46A without considering the A.O’s objection that none of the conditions mentioned under that Rule was satisfied. 2. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,89,19,363/- and Rs. 69,88,121/- made on account of unexplained capital and unexplained cash credits, respectively without considering the factual

SHRI UMANG HIRALAL THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

u/s. 46A without considering the A.O’s objection that none of the conditions mentioned under that Rule was satisfied. 2. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,89,19,363/- and Rs. 69,88,121/- made on account of unexplained capital and unexplained cash credits, respectively without considering the factual

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI UMANG H. THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

u/s. 46A without considering the A.O’s objection that none of the conditions mentioned under that Rule was satisfied. 2. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,89,19,363/- and Rs. 69,88,121/- made on account of unexplained capital and unexplained cash credits, respectively without considering the factual

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(4), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI. SURESHCHANDRA SHANTILAL BRAHMBHATT, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Shri. Sureshchandra Shantilal Ward-1(2)(4), Ahmedabad, Brahmbhatt, Room No. 220, V. 4 Shreenath Bangalow Part-2 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. Matrushree Party Plot, Near Sachin Tower, Vejalpur, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad-380005 Ahmedabad-380051, Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Actpb8904H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Tushar Hemani, Sr. Ar & Sh. Parimalsinh Parmar, Ar Revenue By: Sh. Prasad Rao Waghe Annasaheb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.04.2024

u/s 68 w.r.t. advances granted as well unsecured loans raised in the preceding years, have not stood the verification by the AO. Rule 46A is not merely an empty formality. 14 AY:2016-17 Sh. Sureshchandra Shantilal Bramhbhatt Rule 46A of the 1962 is reproduced hereunder and sub-rule 3 of Rule 46A is relevant: “Production of additional evidence before