DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S.DHARMEN MARBLE & STONE, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 794/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.171/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Dharmen Marble & Stone, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aabfd5172B

credited from city union bank and Prism Cement, thus the corresponding income of Rs. 1,68,970 also remain unexplained and escaped assessment. Therefore, the AO initiated the proceedings under section 147 of the Act by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act. With C.O.No.171/Ahd/2019 Asstt. Year 2010-11 5 4.3 However, the assessee before

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA -HUF, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 795/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.169/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., Dharmenbhai M. Sutaria, Huf Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aafhd1653K

credit under section 68 of the Act in the hands of the assessee. With C.O.No.169/Ahd/2019 Asstt. Year 2010-11 4 4.1 Based on the above, the AO analyzed the bank statements for the period beginning from 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2015 of different persons whose names were appearing in such excel sheet

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRENA S SUTARIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 796/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.172/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., Shrena S. Sutaria, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 8, Amrashagun Bunglows, Ahmedabad. Nr. Hathisingh Park, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Asqps7606E

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act in the hands of the assessee. With C.O.No.172/Ahd/2019 Asstt. Year 2010-11 4 3.2 Based on the above, the AO analyzed the bank statements for the period beginning from 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2015 of different persons whose names were appearing in such excel sheet

RICH PAINTS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(2),, BARODA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 186/Ahd/2015 1995-96 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H 2. 187/Ahd/2015 1996-97 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H 3. 188/Ahd/2015 1997-98 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H

reassessment proceedings are bad in law and without jurisdiction and therefore invalid. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-III (“CIT(A)”) erred in upholding the order of Assessing Officer in confirming the additions u/s 68 of the Act towards share capital made by the Learned Assessing

RICH PAINTS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(2),, BARODA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 186/Ahd/2015 1995-96 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H 2. 187/Ahd/2015 1996-97 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H 3. 188/Ahd/2015 1997-98 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H

reassessment proceedings are bad in law and without jurisdiction and therefore invalid. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-III (“CIT(A)”) erred in upholding the order of Assessing Officer in confirming the additions u/s 68 of the Act towards share capital made by the Learned Assessing

RICH PAINTS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(2),, BARODA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 186/Ahd/2015 1995-96 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H 2. 187/Ahd/2015 1996-97 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H 3. 188/Ahd/2015 1997-98 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H

reassessment proceedings are bad in law and without jurisdiction and therefore invalid. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-III (“CIT(A)”) erred in upholding the order of Assessing Officer in confirming the additions u/s 68 of the Act towards share capital made by the Learned Assessing

ARVINDBHAI PUNABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Accordingly accepted in principle, and the issue is restored to the\nAssessing Officer for fresh adjudication in terms of directions\nabove.\n25. In the combined result, the appeal of the assessee ...

reassessment order was on\naccount of cash deposits of Rs.16,94,93,035/- in various ICICI\nBank accounts, treated as unexplained cash credits

BALKRISHNA TEXTILE (P) LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

unexplained cash credits. 12. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in confirming the various additions made by the Assessing Officer without taking note of the fact that the assessee has already declared profit on the sales made resulting in double taxation of the same income. 13. The Appellant craves leave

BALKRISHNA TEXTILE (P). LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

unexplained cash credits. 12. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in confirming the various additions made by the Assessing Officer without taking note of the fact that the assessee has already declared profit on the sales made resulting in double taxation of the same income. 13. The Appellant craves leave

BALKRISHNA TEXTILE (P) LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

unexplained cash credits. 12. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in confirming the various additions made by the Assessing Officer without taking note of the fact that the assessee has already declared profit on the sales made resulting in double taxation of the same income. 13. The Appellant craves leave

M/S. PUSHPAK BULLION PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Jurisdictional High Court & The Hon’Ble Gujarat High Court Dismissed The Writ Petition Filed By The Assessee Vide Judgment Dated 27-06-2016 In Sca No. 18512 Of 2015 & Upheld The Validity Of The Reassessment Notice.

unexplained cash credits in the garb of share application money.” 4. The Grounds of Appeal raised by the Assessee reads as under: Technical: 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the reassessment

ARVINDKUMAR AMULKH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (3), AHMEADABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

unexplained cash credits and addition of Rs.2,54,547/- being disallowance of interest expenses thereon made by the AO. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has rightly held in Para 6.9 on Page 68 of the appellate order that "while under normal circumstances the AO should have been directed to restrict the disallowance u/s.14A to the extent of exempt income

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

Credit Society Ltd. during the reassessment proceedings. As a result, the Assessing Officer proceeded to treat the entire deposit in the said account as unexplained cash

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

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

Credit Society Ltd. during the reassessment proceedings. As a result, the Assessing Officer proceeded to treat the entire deposit in the said account as unexplained cash

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

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

Credit Society Ltd. during the reassessment proceedings. As a result, the Assessing Officer proceeded to treat the entire deposit in the said account as unexplained cash

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

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

Credit Society Ltd. during the reassessment proceedings. As a result, the Assessing Officer proceeded to treat the entire deposit in the said account as unexplained cash

THE DCIT-CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE SIDDHI INFRABUILD PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V. Mahadeokar

credit under section 68. 2.6 The Assessing Officer thereafter examined further seized vouchers relating to entries classified as “Against EC” in Annexures A-86 and A-129 for various dates in financial year 2010–11, showing cash payments aggregating to Rs. 5,80,00,000/- to the assessee company from concerns of the Venus Group. These included vouchers for coded

THE DCIT-CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE SIDDHI INFRABUILD PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V. Mahadeokar

credit under section 68. 2.6 The Assessing Officer thereafter examined further seized vouchers relating to entries classified as “Against EC” in Annexures A-86 and A-129 for various dates in financial year 2010–11, showing cash payments aggregating to Rs. 5,80,00,000/- to the assessee company from concerns of the Venus Group. These included vouchers for coded