THAKORBHAI MAGANBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD- 3(1)(1), VADODARA

money of ₹1,05,72,000/- in cash,\nwhich was not disclosed. Since the assessee failed to substantiate the receipt\nof such cash with any evidence, the Assessing Officer treated ₹1,05,72,000/-\nas unexplained receipt taxable as “income from other sources\". The\nAssessing Officer also treated ₹4,98,000/- as short-term capital gain by\nassuming cost

SADBHAV ENGINEERING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed\nand that of the Revenue are dismissed

unexplained expenditure for purpose of section 69C because it would amount to\ndouble addition in respect of same income.\n2. Brief description to impediments in execution of projects\n2. 1. The Assessee Company submits that execution of project involves removing\nvarious impediments in actual implementation and completion of work. Various\ncauses which regularly happen at site and their effect

INCOME TAX-OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. AMIT JAYANTIBHAI PATEL, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) Who Deleted The Additions By Observing As Follows: (A) Addition On Account Of Unexplained Money U/S. 69A Of Rs.20,20,950/-

money u/s. 69A of Rs.20,20,950/- (b) Addition on account of unexplained investment u/s.69 of Rs.99,30,528/- (c) Addition on account of Short Term Capital Gain of Rs.14,76,124/- 3. Aggrieved against the reassessment

HIRAL TAPANKUMAR CHUDGAR,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

reassessment by making addition of Rs.29,55,558/- and denied the claim of deduction made u/s.10(38) of the Act, added as unexplained money

ITO (E) WARD 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ACHARYA SHRI VIJAY SURENDRA SURISHWARJI JAIN TATWA GYAN SHALA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

money under section 69A of the Act. The total income was accordingly assessed at Rs.1,83,90,310/-. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals) with a delay, which was explained on the ground that the assessee was not aware of the assessment proceedings due to e- proceedings and communication gaps

JATINKUMAR PATEL,CHHATRAL KALOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 1, MEHSANA, MEHSANA

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

Bench: Dr. B.R.R Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment order for Assessment Year 2014-15 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and directing that the entire bank credits be brought to tax as Jatinkumar Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2014-15 - 9– unexplained money

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

Accordingly kept open.\n10. All Revenue appeals fail on merits and are dismissed

unexplained credits and\nunexplained money in the hands of the assessee and made additions under\nsection 68 and section 69A of the Act.\n2.5 In respect of Assessment Year 2011–12, the Assessing Officer noted that,\naccording to the seized documents in Annexure A-129, pages 161, 166 and\n167, the Venus Group had received an amount of Rs.4

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

Unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act by ignoring the claim of the appellant for taxing the net income only and by not allowing deduction of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- from on-money considered as income on account of income already declared by the appellant under the Income Disclosure Scheme, 2016 for Α.Υ.2015-16. 5.1 I have considered

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

Unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act by ignoring the claim of the appellant for taxing the net income only and by not allowing deduction of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- from on-money considered as income on account of income already declared by the appellant under the Income Disclosure Scheme, 2016 for Α.Υ.2015-16. 5.1 I have considered

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

Unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act by ignoring the claim of the appellant for taxing the net income only and by not allowing deduction of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- from on-money considered as income on account of income already declared by the appellant under the Income Disclosure Scheme, 2016 for Α.Υ.2015-16. 5.1 I have considered

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

Unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act by ignoring the claim of the appellant for taxing the net income only and by not allowing deduction of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- from on-money considered as income on account of income already declared by the appellant under the Income Disclosure Scheme, 2016 for Α.Υ.2015-16. 5.1 I have considered

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

unexplained money inspite of all entries have been explained with supporting evidences produced before first appellate authority. 5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to accept the fresh evidences produced & failed to considering right of natural justice. 4.1. Ld. Counsel Mr. Manish J. Shah appearing for the assessee filed a Paper Book containing of application of additional evidence

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

unexplained money inspite of all entries have been explained with supporting evidences produced before first appellate authority. 5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to accept the fresh evidences produced & failed to considering right of natural justice. 4.1. Ld. Counsel Mr. Manish J. Shah appearing for the assessee filed a Paper Book containing of application of additional evidence

HIRAL TAPANKUMAR CHUDGAR,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And\nShri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Accountant Member\nITA Nos 43 & 44/Ahd/2025\nAssessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19\nHiral Tapankumar\nChudgar\n201/A, Premdarshan,\nBehind Jay Ambe School,\nSamasavli Raod, Vemali,\nVadodara-390008,\nGujarat\nPAN: ANCPC4000H\n(Appellant)\nIncome Tax Officer\nWard-1(3)(1),\nVs Vadodara\n(Respondent)\nAssessee Represented:\nShri Deepak Shah, A.R.\nRevenue Represented:\nShri Abhijit, Sr.D.R.\nDate of hearing\n: 18-06-

unexplained money\nu/s.69 r.w.s.115BBE of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer\nassessed the income at Rs.1,03,04,377/- and demanded tax\nthereon.\n3. Aggrieved against the reassessment

NIRMAN,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalnirman, Vs. 35, Vasantkunj Society, New Dcit, Sharda Mandir Road, Paldi, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380007 Ahmedabad [Pan :Aabfn 7155 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Parin Shah, Ar Respondent Represented By: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer treated the alleged accommodation entry of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and added

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD, PANJARAPOLE, AHMEDABAD vs. VIKASH MORE, BODAKDEV, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

reassessment proceedings. The Assessment Order was passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act dated 30.03.2022 thereby making addition of Rs.1,47,12,954/- as unexplained money

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

SHALIGRAM INFRA PROJECTS LLP ( LTD. LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JCIT (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarit(Ss)A No.167/Ahd/2021 Asstt.Year : 2017-18 & Asst.Year : 2018-19 Shaligram Infra Projects Llp Vs. The Jcit (Osd) 4Th Floor, Office No.401-402 Central Cir.2(2) B/H. Dishman House Ahmedabad. Opp: Sankalp Grace Ii, Ambli Ahmedabad. Pan: Acpfs 7047 A It(Ss)A No.194,195 & 196/Ahd/2021 Asstt.Year : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 & Asst.Year : 2018-19 The Jcit (Osd) Vs. Shaligram Infra Projects Llp Central Cir.2(2) 4Th Floor, Office No.401-402 Ahmedabad. B/H. Dishman House Opp: Sankalp Grace Ii, Ambli Ahmedabad.

unexplained investment in land and disallowance under section 40A(2)(b), and the order of the AO deserved to be restored. 7. The learned Authorised Representative(AR) supported the order of the CIT(A) and placed reliance on his detailed findings. It was pointed out that the Assessing Officer had made the impugned additions solely on the basis of certain