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 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

68 issued by the Export Promotion Council for Eous & SEZS dated 14-05-2009 it mentions that from 1990 onwards Board of Approval had delegated the power of approval of 100 per cent to the Development Commissioner and, therefore, it can be very well argued and said that the Development Commissioner while granting the approval of 100 per cent

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)

34,600/- made by the AO ? (iii) Whether in the facts and in the law the Ld.CIT(A) is right in not upholding the addition of Rs.36,66,427/-made on account of fixed assets and directing to allow the same u/s.11(1) of the Act after verification ? 3. Assessment Year 2016-17 is the taken as the lead case

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)

34,600/- made by the AO ? (iii) Whether in the facts and in the law the Ld.CIT(A) is right in not upholding the addition of Rs.36,66,427/-made on account of fixed assets and directing to allow the same u/s.11(1) of the Act after verification ? 3. Assessment Year 2016-17 is the taken as the lead case

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)

34,600/- made by the AO ? (iii) Whether in the facts and in the law the Ld.CIT(A) is right in not upholding the addition of Rs.36,66,427/-made on account of fixed assets and directing to allow the same u/s.11(1) of the Act after verification ? 3. Assessment Year 2016-17 is the taken as the lead case

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)

34,600/- made by the AO ? (iii) Whether in the facts and in the law the Ld.CIT(A) is right in not upholding the addition of Rs.36,66,427/-made on account of fixed assets and directing to allow the same u/s.11(1) of the Act after verification ? 3. Assessment Year 2016-17 is the taken as the lead case

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)

34,600/- made by the AO ? (iii) Whether in the facts and in the law the Ld.CIT(A) is right in not upholding the addition of Rs.36,66,427/-made on account of fixed assets and directing to allow the same u/s.11(1) of the Act after verification ? 3. Assessment Year 2016-17 is the taken as the lead case

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)

34,600/- made by the AO ? (iii) Whether in the facts and in the law the Ld.CIT(A) is right in not upholding the addition of Rs.36,66,427/-made on account of fixed assets and directing to allow the same u/s.11(1) of the Act after verification ? 3. Assessment Year 2016-17 is the taken as the lead case

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

34 of the Evidence Act (which is with respect to the entries in books of accounts) when the relevant section for the said impounded documents is section 292C of the I.T. Act. 1.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which were in respect of criminal

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

34 of the Evidence Act (which is with respect to the entries in books of accounts) when the relevant section for the said impounded documents is section 292C of the I.T. Act. 1.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which were in respect of criminal

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

34 of the Evidence Act (which is with respect to the entries in books of accounts) when the relevant section for the said impounded documents is section 292C of the I.T. Act. 1.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which were in respect of criminal

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

34 of the Evidence Act (which is with respect to the entries in books of accounts) when the relevant section for the said impounded documents is section 292C of the I.T. Act. 1.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which were in respect of criminal

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

10,34,273/- from corporation bank as per break-up at Page 32 of the Paper Book. The assessee had worked out proportionate expenses at Rs. 9,67,392/- and the net income was worked out at Rs. 66,881/-. On the other hand, the Assessing Officer has incorrectly worked out the net interest income

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

68 of Income Tax Act 1961, even when the assessee has failed to prove creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction. 2. Whether on facts and circumstances and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 14,30,00,000/- made by the AO @ 10% of total expenses, as assesssee could not established the genuineness

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

68 of Income Tax Act 1961, even when the assessee has failed to prove creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction. 2. Whether on facts and circumstances and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 14,30,00,000/- made by the AO @ 10% of total expenses, as assesssee could not established the genuineness

DHARAMTAR MOTORS SERVICES PETROLEUM PRODUCT,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the results, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1438 & 2534/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S Dharamtar Motor Services Income Tax Officer, Petroleum Product, Vs. Ward 6(1)(4) C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Advocate 903, Ahmedabad. Sapphire Complex, C.G. Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aabfd9182F

10(2) has accepted this unsecured loan which has been subsequently credited to the account of Chandrakant N. Shah. After making observation regarding genuineness of unsecured loans in para 5.20, he applied Section 41(1) in para 5.26. In any case, if there is unsecured loan pertaining to AY 2007-08 and earlier year, there is no justification

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GTC OILFIELDS SERVICES P. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the 8 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royappeal No. Ay Appellant Respondent Sn M/S. Gtc Oilfields Services P. Ltd., 2009-10 The Dcit, 61, New York Tower, A-Block, It(Ss)A Nos. 1-3 2010-11 Central Circle 1(4), Thaltej Char Rasta, S.G. Road, 314 To 316/Ahd/2019 2014-15 Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380054 Pan : Aaacg 8684 P The Dcit, M/S. Gtc Oilfields Services P. Ltd.

Section 68 of the Act by treating the share capital and share premium amounts as unexplained cash credit were not sustainable as rightly held by the learned CIT(A). 14. At the time of hearing before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee has emphasized that the facts involved in the present cases are materially similar to the facts

THE DCIT-CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE SIDDHI INFRABUILD PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V. Mahadeokar

10,32,34,740/- 8,37,42,940/- Income in Rs. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeals before the CIT(A), challenging both the validity of the reopening of assessments under section 147 and the additions made under sections 68