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

10-05-2023 wherein he has not doubted the sources of loan given to the appellant. When the assessment of the depositor has been completed u/s 153C of the Act pursuant to same search as has been carried out in present case, addition u/s 68 of the Act for loan taken from such party does not survive. It is found

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)

68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form

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)

68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form

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)

68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form

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)

68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form

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)

68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form

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)

68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form

ALANG STEEL RECYCLING PRIVATE LIMITED,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalalang Steel Recycling The Pr. Cit-1, Private Limited Vs. Ahmedabad – 380 015 Ground Floor, Shop No.G-1 Sukun-1, Bhilwara Circle Bhavnagar – 364 001 [ Pan: Aamca 4837 A ] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue Represented By : Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr 08.12.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026

10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. 10.1. The short issue for our consideration is whether the learned Principal Commissioner was justified in assuming revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer ought to have invoked section 69C read with section 115BBE

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 of the Act for unexplained cash credits and\nan addition of Rs.21,36,579/- for disallowance of certain expenses\nunder section 37(1) of the Act. Later, a report from the Investigation Wing,\nAhmedabad was received by the Assessing Officer (AO), which contained\ninformation regarding accommodation entries and manipulation of penny\nstock transactions allegedly carried

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 of the Act for unexplained cash credits and\nan addition of Rs.21,36,579/- for disallowance of certain expenses\nunder section 37(1) of the Act. Later, a report from the Investigation Wing,\nAhmedabad was received by the Assessing Officer (AO), which contained\ninformation regarding accommodation entries and manipulation of penny\nstock transactions allegedly carried

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 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

37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It be so held now and disallowance be directed to be deleted 7. LD. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 14,42,90,465/- u/s 68 for unsecured loan received during the when the primary onus was duly discharged by appellant by furnishing confirmation with

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

37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It be so held now and disallowance be directed to be deleted 7. LD. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 14,42,90,465/- u/s 68 for unsecured loan received during the when the primary onus was duly discharged by appellant by furnishing confirmation with

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

37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It be so held now and disallowance be directed to be deleted 7. LD. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 14,42,90,465/- u/s 68 for unsecured loan received during the when the primary onus was duly discharged by appellant by furnishing confirmation with

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

37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It be so held now and disallowance be directed to be deleted 7. LD. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 14,42,90,465/- u/s 68 for unsecured loan received during the when the primary onus was duly discharged by appellant by furnishing confirmation with

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. , BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

37(1) of the Act. 6.3. The Ld. CIT(A) / Ld. AO grossly erred in relying on the CBDT Circular No. 5/2012 while disallowing the said expenditure without appreciating that the same is not applicable to the year under consideration and that departmental circulars are not binding on the tax payer, which position has been repeatedly upheld by various judicial

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

37(1) of the Act. 6.3. The Ld. CIT(A) / Ld. AO grossly erred in relying on the CBDT Circular No. 5/2012 while disallowing the said expenditure without appreciating that the same is not applicable to the year under consideration and that departmental circulars are not binding on the tax payer, which position has been repeatedly upheld by various judicial