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

section 68 of the Act. As per amended provisions, the assessee IT(SS)A No. 73/Ahd/2025 and others Group Appeals - HK Ispat Pvt Ltd Asst.Year : 2015-16 to 2021-2022 - 8– needs to explain source to source of sum credited to his bank account, the appellant submitted that such amended provisions not applicable to current year, thus the appellant

THE DCIT,(OSD)-1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. MIDVALLEY HEALTHCARE SERVICES PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

10) of the I.T Act and treated as not eligible for deduction u/s.10B of the I.T Act for the year under consideration. The disallowance on this account comes to rs.10,78,68,462/- 4.5 Going further the AO also disallowed the entire deduction claimed under section

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure

JT.CIT(E), CIRCLE-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure

JT.CIT(E),CIRCLE -2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure

JT.CIT(EXEMPTION)CIRCL-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. BHAVESHKUMAR GIRISHBHAI BHANDARI, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

Appeal is allowed in ITA 978/Ahd/2025 and ITA\n978/Ahd/2025 as well

sections": [ "68", "10(38)", "115BBE", "271AAC", "143(1)", "143(3)", "144B", "37(1)", "147", "132", "132(4)", "131", "10

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

10,19,084.00 on account of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 4. The necessary facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. GIRISHKUMAR AMRATLAL BHANDARI HUF, HIMATNAGAR, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed and the order of\nthe Assessing Officer is restored

68, thereby allowing exemption under section 10(38).\nConsequently, the CIT(Appeals) allowed the appeals for both years,\nholding

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. BHAVESHKUMAR GIRISHBHAI BHANDARI, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed and the order of\nthe Assessing Officer is restored

68, thereby allowing exemption under section 10(38).\nConsequently, the CIT(Appeals) allowed the appeals for both years,\nholding

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

10,60,000/- by treating the cash deposit as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 11. The assessee

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

10,543/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and made an addition accordingly. 7. The assessee

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

Section 68 of the Act. 10. This ground relates to addition of Rs. 1,06,47,500/- on account

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. MAYORA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Department are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

10. On bare perusal of proviso to Section 68 inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013, whereby proviso has been

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. MAYORA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS "INBISCO INDIA PVT. LTD.), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Department are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

10. On bare perusal of proviso to Section 68 inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013, whereby proviso has been

DIPAKKUMAR JAGDISHCHANDRA MAHETA,CHHOTAUDEPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), (PREVIOUSLY ITO, WARD-3(1)(3)), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Dipakkumar Jagdishchandra Maheta The Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Holi Chakla Vs. Vadodara. Alipura Char Rasta Bodeli,Chhotaudepur Gujarat. Pan : Ahtpm 6296 N (Applicant) (Responent) : Shhri Jigar Adhyaru, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 15.05.2024, Confirming The Addition Made By The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3(1)(3), Baroda [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”] Under Section 68 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] In Respect Of The Opening Capital Balance As On 01.04.2014 Amounting To Rs.96,10,209/–, In The Case Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015–16. 2. Facts Of The Case

68 of the Act and brought the same to tax under section 115BBE at the special rate. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) alleging concealment of income. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), inter alia, challenging the addition of Rs.96,10