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

section 68 of the Act. 111. In view of the above, we set aside the finding Ld. CIT (A) and direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 112

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

section 68 of the Act. 111. In view of the above, we set aside the finding Ld. CIT (A) and direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 112

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

section 68 of the Act. 111. In view of the above, we set aside the finding Ld. CIT (A) and direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 112

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

section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer\nrelied upon various judicial precedents, including Suman Poddar v. ITO\n[2019] 112

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

section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer\nrelied upon various judicial precedents, including Suman Poddar v. ITO\n[2019] 112

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

section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer\nrelied upon various judicial precedents, including Suman Poddar v. ITO\n[2019] 112

ANISH RAJNIKANT SHAH,AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

112 in an order of assessment under section 143(3) read with 147 of the Act. 2. That the Learned Assessing Officer has erred both in law and on facts in making an addition of INR 21,51,200 erroneously held to be unexplained credit under section 68

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

section 132 of the Act. 108. The facts of the case are that there was the search and seizure operation under the provisions of section 132 of the Act at the premises of the assessee dated 13th November 2014. Accordingly, the proceedings for the assessment under the provisions of section 153A of the Act were initiated

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

section 132 of the Act. 108. The facts of the case are that there was the search and seizure operation under the provisions of section 132 of the Act at the premises of the assessee dated 13th November 2014. Accordingly, the proceedings for the assessment under the provisions of section 153A of the Act were initiated

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

section 132 of the Act. 108. The facts of the case are that there was the search and seizure operation under the provisions of section 132 of the Act at the premises of the assessee dated 13th November 2014. Accordingly, the proceedings for the assessment under the provisions of section 153A of the Act were initiated

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI RAMESH GOBARJI THAKOR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer Vs. Shri Ramesh Gobarji Thakor Ward-3 Sector 11 Gandhinagar. Gandhinagar. Pan : Aespt 3446 H (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/07/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

section 68 does not attract and relied upon various case laws in support of his claim. 5. The above submission was not accepted by the A.O. since Smt. Hansaben M. Patel has never filed her Return of Income, except only for the AY 2009-10. Even for the AY 2009-10, she has filed Return of Income of Rs.8

GITABEN DINESHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 68 where the assessee failed to establish Gitaben Dineshbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 9– the identity and creditworthiness of counterparties and could not substantiate the genuineness of steep price rise in shares of a company with no commercial worth. The ratio of this judgment squarely applies to the present case, as the assessee has completely failed

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. M/S. AARTI CATALYST SOLUTION PVT. LTD, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the Act by Hon’ble Supreme Court: 7 “A. In Daulat Ram Rawatmull, 87 ITR 360: "The onus to prove that the apparent is not the real is on the party who claims it to be so. As it was the department which claimed that the amount of fixed deposit receipt belonged to the respondent firm

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

NISHANT CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roynishant Construction Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Ltd., 801 – 802, Regency Circle – 3(1)(1), Plaza, Anand Nagar Road, Ahmedabad. Satellite, Ahmedabad – 380 015. [Pan No.Aaacn 3752 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) ..

section 68 of the Act, neither we encourage multiple innings to revenue authorities as the ratio laid down in the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rajesh Babubhai Damania-vs- CIT, reported in 122 Taxman 614(Guj) which was subsequently followed by the Hon’ble ITAT Bench, at Delhi in the case

M/S. SHRI RANG INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. DCIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 68 the onus on assessee has been duly discharged in reassessment proceedings. It has been held in Apex Court and jurisdictional High Court that when the primary onus on the assessee is discharged then the Ld. A.O. cannot proceed further for making addition u/s. 68 of the Act.” 10.1 The Ld. AR also relied upon the following decisions

AMBANI BUILDERS PRIVATE LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

section 68 A. Credit worthiness of the person B. identity of the person and C. bonafide ness of the transaction is established. B REGARDING SECOND ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST AMOUNTING TO Rs.64,68,238/- Your honour sir, the advances was given to the different persons with out interest as rightly observed by the Id. Assessing officer

WAVES TRADELINE PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 days\n| Notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act\n| 25.05.2022\n| 27.05.2022\n| Date on which reply was required to be filed\nas per notice issued under Section 148A(b)\nof the Act\n| 15.06.2022\n| 17.06.2022\n| Date on which reply was filed by the\nassessee in response to the notice under\nSection 148A