DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD),RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

reassessment order. Dissatisfied with the addition, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). 19. It contended that similar issue was taken in the hands of SDBPL. Dispute travelled upto the ITAT, and it was held that assessee and SDBPL were maintaining current accounts. These were not in the nature of loans which could be treated

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

reassessment order. Dissatisfied with the addition, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). 19. It contended that similar issue was taken in the hands of SDBPL. Dispute travelled upto the ITAT, and it was held that assessee and SDBPL were maintaining current accounts. These were not in the nature of loans which could be treated

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

reassessment order. Dissatisfied with the addition, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). 19. It contended that similar issue was taken in the hands of SDBPL. Dispute travelled upto the ITAT, and it was held that assessee and SDBPL were maintaining current accounts. These were not in the nature of loans which could be treated

WELSPUN PROJECTS LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS MSK PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.),BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), BARODA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1864/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Welspun Projects (Formerly Known Ito, Ward-4(1) As Msk Projects (India) Ltd. Vs Baroda. 707-708, Sterling Centre R.C.Dutt Road, Alkapuri Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aabcm 4107 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi With Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, Dr

reassessment order the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim for deduction u/s.80-IA(4). The Assessing Officer has recorded his finding at pages 8 to 10 of his order. He has mentioned that during the previous year relevant to this assessment year the appellant-company was only a Civil Contractor. He has mentioned that the appellant-company worked only

WELSPUN PROJECTS LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS MSK PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.),BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, RANGE-4,, BARODA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1864/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Welspun Projects (Formerly Known Ito, Ward-4(1) As Msk Projects (India) Ltd. Vs Baroda. 707-708, Sterling Centre R.C.Dutt Road, Alkapuri Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aabcm 4107 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi With Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, Dr

reassessment order the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim for deduction u/s.80-IA(4). The Assessing Officer has recorded his finding at pages 8 to 10 of his order. He has mentioned that during the previous year relevant to this assessment year the appellant-company was only a Civil Contractor. He has mentioned that the appellant-company worked only

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#।]

58. 117/Ahd/2024 2018-19 Revenue Dhiraj Shivkumar Gogia 59. CO 2018-19 Dhiraj Shivkumar Revenue 22/Ahd/2025 Gogia 60. 97/Ahd/2024 2018-19 Revenue Keisha AmitkumarGogia 2, Krishvilla Bungalows Opp. Arman Bungalows, Bodakdev, Ahmeadbad-380054 PAN:AGZPT3164F 61. CO 2018-19 Keisha Amitkumar Revenue 35/Ahd/2025 Gogia (address same as above) 62. 98/Ahd/2024 2019-20 Revenue Sagar Shivkumar Gogia E-239, Sumel Business

DARED SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LIMITED,BHAVANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Separate Appellate

58,357/- was raised by the AO , vide reassessment order dated 29.03.2023 passed by the AO u/s 147 read with Section 144B of the 1961 Act. 4

DARED SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LIMITED,BHAVNAGAR, GUJARAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Separate Appellate

58,357/- was raised by the AO , vide reassessment order dated 29.03.2023 passed by the AO u/s 147 read with Section 144B of the 1961 Act. 4

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3) ,AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAVAN, ASHRAM ROAD vs. SIDDHESWARI INFRASTRUCTURE, JUDGES BUNGLOW ROAD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 595 & 596/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively The Dcit Siddheswari Infrastructure बनाम/ Circle-1(3) B-101, Shakti Enclave V/S. Ahmedabad Judges Bungalows Road Ahmedabad – 380 054 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abmfs 3587 R (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : -None- Revenue By : Shri Rignesh K. Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

Section 147 Date of Reassessment 29.09.2021 29.09.2021 Order Key Additions by AO - Rs.1,38,65,603 - Rs.2,10,62,866 (Unexplained (Unexplained transactions) transactions) ITA Nos.595 & 596/Ahd/2023 The DCIT vs. Siddheswari Infrastructure Asst. Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 - Rs.3,85,82,434 - Rs.36,50,754 (Excess (Estimated profit @ depreciation on heavy 20% of bogus sales on machinery) Rs.23

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), AAYKAR BHAVAN vs. SIDDHESWARI INFRASTRUCTURE, JUDGES BUNGLOW ROAD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 595 & 596/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively The Dcit Siddheswari Infrastructure बनाम/ Circle-1(3) B-101, Shakti Enclave V/S. Ahmedabad Judges Bungalows Road Ahmedabad – 380 054 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abmfs 3587 R (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : -None- Revenue By : Shri Rignesh K. Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

Section 147 Date of Reassessment 29.09.2021 29.09.2021 Order Key Additions by AO - Rs.1,38,65,603 - Rs.2,10,62,866 (Unexplained (Unexplained transactions) transactions) ITA Nos.595 & 596/Ahd/2023 The DCIT vs. Siddheswari Infrastructure Asst. Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 - Rs.3,85,82,434 - Rs.36,50,754 (Excess (Estimated profit @ depreciation on heavy 20% of bogus sales on machinery) Rs.23

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

58,950.27/- (USD 89,054). 4. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that 100% of the addition is taxable on a substantive basis in the hands of the appellant as against the AO adding 50% on a substantive basis and 50% on a protective basis. This amounts to enhancement and is not permissible without

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

58,950.27/- (USD 89,054). 4. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that 100% of the addition is taxable on a substantive basis in the hands of the appellant as against the AO adding 50% on a substantive basis and 50% on a protective basis. This amounts to enhancement and is not permissible without

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

58,950.27/- (USD 89,054). 4. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that 100% of the addition is taxable on a substantive basis in the hands of the appellant as against the AO adding 50% on a substantive basis and 50% on a protective basis. This amounts to enhancement and is not permissible without

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

58,950.27/- (USD 89,054). 4. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that 100% of the addition is taxable on a substantive basis in the hands of the appellant as against the AO adding 50% on a substantive basis and 50% on a protective basis. This amounts to enhancement and is not permissible without

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

58,950.27/- (USD 89,054). 4. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that 100% of the addition is taxable on a substantive basis in the hands of the appellant as against the AO adding 50% on a substantive basis and 50% on a protective basis. This amounts to enhancement and is not permissible without

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

58,950.27/- (USD 89,054). 4. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that 100% of the addition is taxable on a substantive basis in the hands of the appellant as against the AO adding 50% on a substantive basis and 50% on a protective basis. This amounts to enhancement and is not permissible without

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

58,950.27/- (USD 89,054). 4. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that 100% of the addition is taxable on a substantive basis in the hands of the appellant as against the AO adding 50% on a substantive basis and 50% on a protective basis. This amounts to enhancement and is not permissible without

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEHAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

58,950.27/- (USD 89,054). 4. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that 100% of the addition is taxable on a substantive basis in the hands of the appellant as against the AO adding 50% on a substantive basis and 50% on a protective basis. This amounts to enhancement and is not permissible without