ANKIT VIJAYKUMAR JAIN,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 68 of the Act in respect of cash deposits made in bank accounts during the demonetization period. The assessee

AMARPADMA CREDITS PRIVATE LIMITED,JODHPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: MRS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

Section 68 of the Act. 5. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions, with the following observations: “5.5 As regards ground of appeal No.3 is concerned, it is noted that the appellant has claimed that the source of cash deposited in the bank were out of amount received from advances made by the company and the AO has amply

RAVIKUMAR KAMLESHBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -5(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

68 of the Income Tax Act, and taxed accordingly. Penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) are initiated separately. (Addition : Rs.3,28,75,000/-) 11. A question which possibly arises is whether this amount to double taxation. The undersigned is of view that it does not amount to double taxation of same income as cash deposits during demonetization

PATEL WINES,KHEDA vs. THE DY.CIT, KHEDA CIRCLE, NADIAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

demonetization period represented unaccounted income of the assessee firm. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹1,61,37,212/- as unexplained money under section 68

INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ANKIT GOLD LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

demonetization period as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Thus, an addition of Rs. 3,02,62,000/- was made

NARANBHAI SAMATBHAI BHARWAD THROUGH LEGAL HEIR DEVRAJBHAI NARANBHAI BHARWAD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Tr Senthil Kumar

68 section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income tax payable shall be the aggregate of- (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent, and (ii) the amount

INCOME TAX OFFICER, VEJAPUR vs. DARSHAN ORNA LIMITED, NAVRANGPURA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1606/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Income Tax Officer Darshan Orna Limited बनाम/ Vejalpur 102, Shri Balaju Paragon V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 015 C.G. Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aadcd 7142 E अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

demonetization was Rs.2.57 crores, out of which the assessee had deposited Rs.2.18 crores during 10.11.2016 to 14.11.2016. Thus, the cash deposits were duly backed by cash as per books. The CIT(A) held that the AO had made the addition by invoking section 68

ZARINABEN RAHIMBHAI KALAVATAR,MAHUVA vs. ACIT, WARD-2(4), BHAVNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

demonetization). The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.4,41,845/- under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE of the Act related

PARK PARADISE,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member\nAnd Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nITA Nos.207 & 208/Ahd/2022\nAssessment Year 2017-18\nPark Plaza\nNr. Saurabh Park,\nGotri-Samata, Road,\nGotri Vadodara\nGujarat-390021\nPAN: AAPFP6647K\nVs\nThe PCIT,\nVadodara-1,\nVadodara\nPark Paradise\nPlot No. 75,\nNr. Billa Bong School,\nVadsar, Vadodara\nGujarat-390010\nPAN: AASFP0787D\n(Appellant)\nVs\nThe PCIT,\nVadodara-1,\nVadodara\n(Respondent)\nAssessee Represented: Shri M.J. Shah, Adv. &\nS

68 section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D,\nif such income is not covered under clause (a), the income tax payable\nshall be the aggregate of-\n(i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in\nclause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent

PARK PLAZA,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member\nAnd Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\n\nITA Nos.207 & 208/Ahd/2022\nAssessment Year 2017-18\n\n| Park Plaza\n| Nr. Saurabh Park,\n| Gotri-Samata, Road,\n| Gotri Vadodara\n| Gujarat-390021\n| PAN: AAPFP6647K\n| Park Paradise\n| Plot No. 75,\n| Nr. Billa Bong School,\n| Vadsar, Vadodara\n| Gujarat-390010\n| PAN: AASFP0787D\n| (Appellant)\n\n| The PCIT,\n| Vadodara-1,\nVs Vadodara\n\n| Vs The PCIT,\n| Vadodara-1,\n| Vadodara\n| (Respondent)\n\nA

68 section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D,\nif such income is not covered under clause (a), the income tax payable\nshall be the aggregate of-\n(i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in\nclause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent

BHAUMIK JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1642/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Bhaumik Jewellers Private The Ito बनाम/ Limited Ward-1(1)(2) V/S. 111, Gold Souk Complex Ahmedabad B/H. Sapphire Complex Cg Road Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aagcb 2423 B (अपीलाथ)/ Appellant) (*+ यथ)/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short “The Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Dated 26/07/2024 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short “The Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated The Confirmation Of The Addition Of Rs. 9,65,97,834/- Made By The Ao Under Section 68 Of The Act Bhaumik Jewellers Private Limited Vs. The Ito Asst. Year : 2017-18

demonetized notes collected by the assessee from its members would not be hit by the provisions of section 68 of the Act in the facts

THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADINATH ORNAMENTS PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 68 was\nsatisfactorily discharged by the assessee. The cash book, purchase register,\nstock details, and VAT returns were produced and formed part of the\nassessment record. The AO did not make any independent enquiry, did not\ncall for cross-verification of sales, and did not find any contradiction in the\nstock position or method of accounting

MALVI AND CO.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18. I.T.A No. 658/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 2 Malvi and Co. vs. ITO 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Partnership Firm and engaged in the business of trading in shares

BIMAL KUNJBIHARI GORAI, HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

demonetization, which showed income under section 44AD of the Act. Considering the explanation unsatisfactory, the Assessing Officer rejected the books of account under section 145(3) and (i) made an addition of Rs. 59,90,000/- as unexplained cash credits under section 68

ARROW CLOTHING PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

demonetization period of Rs. 30,84,500/- to the income returned by the assessee as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act, subjecting it to tax at the special rate prescribed under Section

ASRAFKHAN KALNDRKHAN PATHAN,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1042/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Asrafkhan Kalndrkhan Pathan The Acit बनाम Sardar Apartment Circle-1(3), / Kanch Ni Masjid Ahmedabad V/S. Jamalpur Ahmedabad – 380 001 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Agcpp 7537 R अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.R. Popat, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

section 68, representing cash deposits made during the demonetization period. Rs.11,74,780/- was disallowed as unexplained agricultural income under

ABHISHEK ASHOKKUMAR JAIN,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed, and the addition made by the AO is hereby deleted

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2017-18 Abhishek Ashokkumar Jain The Income Tax Officer 1 Bharatnagar Society, Vs Ward-1(2)(1), Sahapur Dudheshwar, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380004 Gujarat Pan: Aprpj3999P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinit Mundra, Ar Revenue By : Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13/05/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19-12- 2023 Passed By The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7 Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred As “Cit(A)”, Which Dismissed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred As “Ao”) Adding Cash Deposits In The Bank During The Demonetization Period As Unexplained Cash Under Section 68 R.W.S 115Bbe Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred A “The Act”) For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of The Appeal: Abhishek Ashokkumar Jain Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2017-18

demonetization period as unexplained cash under section 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred a “the Act”) for the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. Assessee

DAWOODI BOHRA JAMAT GODHRA,GODHRA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-EXEMPTION, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1567/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dawoodi Bohra Jamat Godhra The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Dawoodi Bohra Masjid Ward Exemption V/S. Vohrawad, Godhra Vadodara Godhra – 389 001 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaatd 4476 D (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

68 of the Act, amounting to Rs.14,53,000/- taxed at the rate prescribed under Section 115BBE of the Act, and upheld the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271AAC of the Act. Dawoodi Bohra Jamat Godhra vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 Facts of the case: 2. The assessee e-filed its return of income on 06/07/2017 declaring