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

105. The AR before us submitted that all the documents in support of the cash credit entries were duly furnished in the course of the assessment proceedings. As such the assessee has discharged the onus cast upon it under the provisions of section 68

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

105. The AR before us submitted that all the documents in support of the cash credit entries were duly furnished in the course of the assessment proceedings. As such the assessee has discharged the onus cast upon it under the provisions of section 68

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA vs. NEOTECH EDUCATION FOUNDATION, VADODARA

68 to 69D of the Act. As such, it is the onus of the revenue to bring out the necessary evidence to hold that the assessee has made investments in the impugned land which is unexplained under the provisions of section 69B of the Act. Likewise, the contents of the email having attachments of page 157 and 158 were

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA vs. NEOTECH EDUCATION FOUNDATION, VADODARA

68 to 69D of the Act. As such, it is the onus of the revenue to bring out the necessary evidence to hold that the assessee has made investments in the impugned land which is unexplained under the provisions of section 69B of the Act. Likewise, the contents of the email having attachments of page 157 and 158 were

SHRI PRAVINCHANDRA R PATEL,VADODARA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

68 to 69D of the Act. As such, it is the onus of the revenue to bring out the necessary evidence to hold that the assessee has made investments in the impugned land which is unexplained under the provisions of section 69B of the Act. Likewise, the contents of the email having attachments of page 157 and 158 were

FIREFLY ENERGY LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 2871/Ahd/2016 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Firefly Energy Limited, Income Tax Officer, 14. Pahelgaon Bunglow, Vs. Ward-2(1)(3), Judges Bungalow Road, Ahmedabad. Vastrapura, Ahmedabad. C/O. Mehta Lodha & Co. Chartered Accountants, 105, Sakar-1, Near Gandhi Gram Rly. Station, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aabca6692E

105, Sakar-1, Near Gandhi Gram Rly. Station, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. PAN: AABCA6692E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri PD Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT. DR सुिवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 18/03/2024 घोरणाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement: 28/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance

AANYA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rifaur Rahman

section 68 of the Act. He further observed that the assessee has alleged payment of interest on these loans which were termed as bogus, therefore, the expenses claimed in the shape of interest deserves to be disallowed. He disallowed such interest expenditure and made addition of Rs.3,01,277/-. 5. Dissatisfied with the additions, the assessee carried the matter

D. J. STOCK BROKING PRIVATE LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ground number 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

section 68 of the Act for the assessment year 2011-12. While making addition, the AO observed as under: “2.6 A careful study of the affairs of the assessee company and its worthiness and the affairs of the so-called share applicants and its worthiness, it appears that the assessee company, which has been showing losses in the return

D. J. STOCK BROKING PRIVATE LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri T.S. Kapoor

105, Sakar-I, Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009 PAN : AACCD 7429 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.D. Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 24/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 03/03/2020 आदेश/O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT Assessee is in appeal before

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:

105) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT (50 ITR 1) to justify the addition under Section 68 of the Act. These

KAMAKAHYA METAL & IRON PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATTA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumar

105, Sakar-I, Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. PAN : AADCK 8030 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Revenue by : Shri P.D. Shah, CA Assessee by : Shri Samir Tekriwal, CIT-DR and Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 25/03/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: /05/2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR

KAMAKAHYA METAL & IRON PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumar

105, Sakar-I, Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. PAN : AADCK 8030 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Revenue by : Shri P.D. Shah, CA Assessee by : Shri Samir Tekriwal, CIT-DR and Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 25/03/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: /05/2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEHAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee