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

Section 69C of the Act, treating it as unexplained expenditure. 10.3 On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO's finding that the suppliers were non-genuine but disagreed with the 100% disallowance. Relying on jurisdictional precedents, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to 6% of the purchase value, concluding that in cases where sales are not doubted

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. EL DORADO BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

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

Section 68 of the Act, without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the material brought on record. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that violation of natural justice

SHRI UMIYA COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. ,1, SENETARY ROAD , KUTCHHI PATIDAR VADI, PETLAD TAL. PETLAD DIST. ANAND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), PETLAD

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

natural justice. The appellant prays that direction may be given to provide the appellant sufficient opportunity to file its submissions and the appellant may be allowed to produce additional evidences as per Rule 46A. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grievously erred in law and on facts in charging tax of Rs. 63,85,500/- u/s 115BBE

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

section 68 in respect of three loan creditors, the AR submitted that the relevant parties were not responding to the assessee’s repeated requests for confirmation. In view of the limited nature of deficiency and in the interest of justice

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

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 the AO has challenged the initiation of the proceedings under section 147 of the Act by contending

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

natural justice was given to it and the procedure as per judicial pronouncements was followed as mentioned in initial paras of this order. Subsequently, assessee was asked regarding source of the same vide show-cause notice dated 17.11.2017. Assessee submitted its reply vide submissions dated 08.12.2017 and 13.12.2017. The submission and contentions of the assessee are duly considered. However

JAS INFRASPACE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

natural justice, if any, can not render the order void, but is liable to be remanded back to the AO to be done de novo. 2 The Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition u/s 68 of the IT Act the advance from Sundry debtors where the identity, creditworthiness of the parties could

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JAS INFRA SPACE PRIVATE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

natural justice, if any, can not render the order void, but is liable to be remanded back to the AO to be done de novo. 2 The Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition u/s 68 of the IT Act the advance from Sundry debtors where the identity, creditworthiness of the parties could

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JAS INFRA SPACE PRIVATE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

natural justice, if any, can not render the order void, but is liable to be remanded back to the AO to be done de novo. 2 The Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition u/s 68 of the IT Act the advance from Sundry debtors where the identity, creditworthiness of the parties could

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JAS INFRASPACE PRIVATE LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

natural justice, if any, can not render the order void, but is liable to be remanded back to the AO to be done de novo. 2 The Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition u/s 68 of the IT Act the advance from Sundry debtors where the identity, creditworthiness of the parties could

SHRI NARENDRA B. PATEL,,SABARKANTHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, HIMATNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3153/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Narendra B. Patel, I.T.O., 592, Pampaliva Vas, Vs. Ward-2, Moyad, Himatnagar. Sabarkantha-383110. Pan: Asupp6989M

68 of the Act to Section 69 of the Act. This action of Ld. CIT(A) is illegal and without jurisdiction firstly because the same has been done without issuance of any notice and secondly the same has been done mechanically without any application of mind. 3. The Ld. CIT (A), has erred in law and on the facts

MANISH DEVENDRAKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in full

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.918/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Manish Devendrakumar Shah The Ito बनाम/ 206, 2Nd Floor, Kalash 1 Ward-5(3)(1) V/S. Navrangpura Ahmedabad Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aqjps 4226 K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divatia, Ar & Shri Samir Vora, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20 /02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

Section 68 of the Act is deleted. 9. The assessee also raised a ground regarding violation of natural justice due to non-supply

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHREYASI DHARMEN SUTARIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 797/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.173/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., Shreyasi Dharmen Sutaria, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. 2Nd Address: 8, Amrashagun Bunglows, Nr. Hathisingh Park, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Awops1881R

Natural Justice and assessment will be competed in the judicious manner. Assessee will also provided all the material relied upon by this office to complete reassessment proceeding. Further, assessee is also requested to cooperate in the re-assessment proceeding and submit his explanation/submission within time allowed by assessing officer so that assessing officer has enough time to consider his submission

MADHU SILICA FOUNDATION,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the Ld. AO in levying interest u/s. 234A/B/C/D of the Act. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action

M/S. ARIHANT JEWELS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

natural justice. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not considering fully and properly the submissions made and evidence produced by the appellant with regard to the impugned addition. 2.1 The Ld. CITCA) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 50 lakh as headless deemed income

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

natural justice and being passed without properly considering various submissions, deserves to be cancelled. It be so held now. 10. 10. The Id. CIT(A) [NFAC] ought to have accepted the various grounds of appeal by allowing them in toto. 11. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or delete any of the grounds at the time of hearing

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)

nature and source of impugned credits to the satisfaction of the AO/ NFAC. Therefore, the addition made by the AO under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Act is found correct and accordingly ground of appeal No.3 is dismissed.” 5 Amarpadma Credits Pvt Ltd Vs. ITO AY : 2017-18 6. The assessee is an appeal before us against

ITO WARD-4(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. VALLEY COMTRADE PVT LTD ( EARLIER KNOWN AS JHAWAR COMTRADE PVT. LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddharatha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2034/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 I.T.O, M/S. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., Ward-4(1)(4), Vs. (Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Ahmedabad. Pvt. Ltd.,) C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli Bmw Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aadcs3553N & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 68/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 M/S. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O, (Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Vs. Ward-1(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd.,) Surat. C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli Bmw Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aadcs3553N

natural justice and equity without granting Cross examination of the various persons including Rakesh Agarwal, Dinesh Dhandhania etc. on whose statements reliance had been placed while completing the assessment. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not appreciating the affidavits of the share applicants/shareholders furnished during the course of assessment proceedings wherein they have deposed