THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHALIGRAM INFRA PROJECTS LLP , AHMEDABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

40A(2)(b), and the order\nof the AO deserved to be restored.\n7.\nThe learned Authorised Representative(AR) supported the order of the\nCIT(A) and placed reliance on his detailed findings. It was pointed out that\nthe Assessing Officer had made the impugned additions solely on the basis\nof certain loose papers being page nos.58 and 60 seized

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. MOHAMMEDARIF IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL AT AHMEDABAD] BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD M JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1115/Ahd/2019 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) ITO Vs. Mohammedarif Ibrahimbhai Ward-1(2)(3), Shaikh, Prop. of M/s. I.K. Ahmedabad International, House No. 314, Baitul Ibrahim, Kagdiwad, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006 [PAN No. AHEPS2816H] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) C.O. No. 10/Ahd/2022

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. MOHAMMEDARIF IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL AT AHMEDABAD] BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD M JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1115/Ahd/2019 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) ITO Vs. Mohammedarif Ibrahimbhai Ward-1(2)(3), Shaikh, Prop. of M/s. I.K. Ahmedabad International, House No. 314, Baitul Ibrahim, Kagdiwad, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006 [PAN No. AHEPS2816H] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) C.O. No. 10/Ahd/2022

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. N K PROTEINS PVT. LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

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

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

40A(2)(b) of the Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) has erred in quashing the assessment order holding that reassessment notice relating to alleged escapement of income relating to disallowance u/s.14A is mere change of opinion on part of the subsequent Assessing Officer, without considering

SHRI KAMLESH JAYANTILAL JHAVERI,,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Kamlesh Jayantilal Jhaveri, Income Tax Officer, B/201, Siddh Silla Apartment, Vs Ward 10(1), B/H. Ekta Tower, Barrage Road, Ahmedabad Vasna, Ahmedabad Pan : Aetpj 5973 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Jaiswal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/09/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad-5 [“Cit(A) In Short]” Dated 26.02.2015; And, The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Learned Cit(A) On Account Of Disallowance Of Assessee’S Claim For Loss Of Rs.12.64 Crores.

u/s. 40A(2)(b) and also the fact that there is no allegation of any collusion or arrangement with these party by which the profit has been manipulated. Merely, decline in GP by itself cannot be the reason for rejecting the books of accounts and estimating the income as was held in following judicial pronouncements.” 3. The Assessing Officer

AFFAQUE BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

40A(2)(b) of the Act thereby assessing the total income of Rs.1,67,43,373/-. 2.1. On perusal of the above reassessment records by Ld. PCIT, the assessee company has made total cash deposits of Rs.2,09,79,700/-, however in the reassessment order, the Assessing Officer has made an addition only to the extent of Rs.1 crore. Thus

SHRI KAMLESH J. JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 10(1), AHMEDABAD

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.1254/Ahd/2016 नि◌धा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Shri Kamlesh J. Jhaveri, Income Tax Officer, B/201, Siddh Silla Apartment, Vs. Ward-10(1), B/H. Ekta Tower, Ahmedabad. Barage Road, Vasna, Ahmedabad-380007. Pan: Aetpj5973L

40A(2)(b) of the Act. But ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of losses of Rs.77,95,670/- on the basis of his observation which erupted out of the additional plea taken by the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings and before the first appellate authority assessee had submitted that primarily all the impugned 15 transactions have been

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. APPLITECH SOLUTION LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 246/Ahd/2020 & CO No. 74/Ahd/2020 Assessment Year : 1999-2000 Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Applitech Solution Limited, Circle 1(1)(1), Vs 503, Paritosh, Nr. Darpan Ahmedabad Academy, Usmanpura, Ahmedabad-380013 PAN: AABCA 8332 P ITA No. 247/Ahd/2020 & CO No. 75/Ahd/2020 Assessment Year

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. ( ERSTWHILE RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED),BARODA vs. THE ACIT,CENT.CIRCLE-1, BARODA

40a(ia) also cannot be made. In the result ground no.9 of the appeal is allowed.” 30. In view of the identical issue raised before us in the ground of appeal no. 7 which has already been considered by the ITAT Delhi as discussed above, we are taking the same view. Accordingly, we allow the ground of appeal