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

deposit of cash amounting to ₹ 5 lacs in the assessment year 2011-12 i.e. subsequent AY which was not explained and therefore the same was treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68

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

deposit of cash amounting to ₹ 35 lacs in the assessment year 2011-12 i.e. subsequent AY which was not explained and therefore the same was treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. STHAPATYA SHILP CONSTRUCTION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 907/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.170/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Sthapatya Shilp Construction, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 2, Abhiraj Complex, Ahmedabad. 68-B, Swastic Society, Ahmedabad. Pan: Abffs2922P

section 68 of the Act. 11.2 However, the AO during the assessment proceedings observed that the assessee has taken a loan through the banking channel in the year under consideration which was withdrawn in cash and recorded in the cash book as cash in hand. Subsequently, the assessee claimed to have re-deposited

SHRI SANJAY ANANDRAY BHATT ,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-14(3),, AHMEDABAD

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. All the grounds of the assessee from 1.1 to 2.1 are interconnected to the common issue of confirming the following additions made by the ld. CIT(A). I.T.A No. 927/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 2 Shri Sanjay Anandray Bhatt vs. ITO (i) Agricultural income

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. SARTHAV BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 908/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Sarthav Builders, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. B-1, Abhishree Complex, Ahmedabad. Opp. Star Bazar, Satellite, Ahmedabad. Pan: Abffs3812C

deposit of cash amounting to ₹5 lakhs (in assessment order 52,5000) in the assessment year 2011-12 i.e. subsequent AY which was not explained and therefore the same was treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68

PRAMUKH METAL QUARRY,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3), VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us On 07.04.2025 & Which Read As Under:

deposit in bank account after the date of demonetization, i.e., 08.11.2016 does not mean that the cash- in-hand held as on 08.08.2016 though duly shown in the books of accounts becomes unexplained money. The ld AO has to demonstrate the same with the evidence that the same is undisclosed Income. As such the provision of the section 68

H K ISPAT PVT. LTD.,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

cash from the assessee which they had deposited in M/s.Vaibhav Enterprises and from that account cheques were issued in favour of the lenders, and in turn, the lenders issued cheques and deposited with the assessee. They, however, confirmed that signature and address on the confirmation letters were theirs. They further stated that they did not know the assessee

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

cash from the assessee which they had deposited in M/s.Vaibhav Enterprises and from that account cheques were issued in favour of the lenders, and in turn, the lenders issued cheques and deposited with the assessee. They, however, confirmed that signature and address on the confirmation letters were theirs. They further stated that they did not know the assessee

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

cash from the assessee which they had deposited in M/s.Vaibhav Enterprises and from that account cheques were issued in favour of the lenders, and in turn, the lenders issued cheques and deposited with the assessee. They, however, confirmed that signature and address on the confirmation letters were theirs. They further stated that they did not know the assessee

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 ...

68 of the Act.\n4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned\nCommissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the learned\nassessing officer in making an addition of Rs.16,94,93,035/- being\namount of cash deposited with the bank as unexplained cash credit\nunder section

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

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

section 68 of the Act, and we uphold the deletion to this extent. Cash sales and re-deposit of withdrawals

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

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

section 68 of the Act, and we uphold the deletion to this extent. Cash sales and re-deposit of withdrawals

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

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

section 68 of the Act, and we uphold the deletion to this extent. Cash sales and re-deposit of withdrawals

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

section 68 of the Act, and we uphold the deletion to this extent. Cash sales and re-deposit of withdrawals

HARISHKUMAR KHUSHALRAY BHATT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(2) NOW WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Harishkumar Khushalray Bhatt Ito, Ward-3(3)(2) P/1, Chandragupta Apartment Vs. Ahmedabad. Nr. Gordhandas Patel Hospital Vastrapur Ahmedabad. Pan : Abspb 3786 F (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Pritesh L. Shah, Ar : Shri Uday Kishanrao Kakne, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

68, the estimation of net profit, and the disallowance of donation under section 80G. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.32,61,500/- under section 69A, holding that the explanation for cash deposits

MR. CHETANKUMAR RATILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.905/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2014-2015 Shri Chetankumar Ratilal Shah, Income Tax Officer, 6, Pratik Appartments, Vs. Ward-5(1)(1), Nr. Shipalaya Char Rasta, Ahmedabad. Vasna, Ahmedabad-380007. Pan: Aqnps3125R

cash deposited in the banks, if not supported with the proper evidence, will be treated as unaccounted deposit u/s.68 of the Act. 1. Sudhir Kumar Sharma HUF Vs, CIT Punjab Si Hariyana 46 taxrnan.com 340 held as under:- "Section 68

MOHD. NAUSHAD ANSARI (PROP. GULSAN SEV FOODS),AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Mohd Naushad Ansari The Ito, Ward-5(3)(3) Prop: Gulsan Sev Foods Vs. Anandnagar Road 51, Pujara Ni Chali Ahmedabad. Nr.Sarangpur Bridge Kamdar Medan – Gomtipur Ahmedabad 380 021 Pan: Aiwpa 6480 G (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri M.K. Patel, Ar Assessee By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.01.2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Confirming The Addition Of Rs.28,54,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 68 Of The Act In Respect Of Cash Deposits Made In The Bank Accounts Of The Assessee During The Demonetisation Period. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3)(3), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”], Vide Order Dated 29.12.2019. 2. Facts Of The Case 2

section 68 and confirmed the addition made by the AO. 3. Aggrieved by the said appellate order, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following grounds: 1. That on facts, and in law, the learned NEAC has grievously erred in confirming the addition made u/s 68 of the Act in respect of cash deposited

JAP AGRO FOODS PVT.LTD.,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(4),, BARODA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 191/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 M/S Jap Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O, Block No.295, Vs. Ward-1(4), Ranu Tal. Padra, Baroda. Vadodara.

cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The view was subsequently upheld by the learned CIT (A). 9.1 However, on perusal of the bank statement of Shri Jignesh V Patel, we note that he has advanced loan to the assessee for Rs. 28 lakhs which was deposited