AMARPADMA CREDITS PRIVATE LIMITED,JODHPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: MRS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

119 (Del.); and - Rajmandir Estates Private Limited vs. PCIT-386 ITR 162 (Cal)]. 5.5.1 In this case, it is clear that the appellant has not been able to discharge its onus to prove the nature and source of impugned credits to the satisfaction of the AO/ NFAC. Therefore, the addition made by the AO under section 68

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\nthe Act. In the absence of satisfactory explanation, the Assessing Officer is\njustified in treating the transactions as unexplained cash credits. Similarly, in\nPrincipal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Smt. Usha Devi Modi [2023] 151\ntaxmann.com 119

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\nthe Act. In the absence of satisfactory explanation, the Assessing Officer is\njustified in treating the transactions as unexplained cash credits. Similarly, in\nPrincipal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Smt. Usha Devi Modi [2023] 151\ntaxmann.com 119

SHAILESHKUMAR DAHYABHAI PATEL,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(2) (NOW DCIT CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, GUJARAT, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, Ground Number 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68 of the Act, which has been deleted by us, the disallowance of interest cannot survive. Accordingly, Ground No. 6 is also allowed. 16. With respect to Ground Number 7 (disallowance of Interest expenses of Rs. 35.21 lakhs), the counsel for the assessee submitted that this interest payment is with respect to loans taken in earlier assessment years. Further

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

119 (Calcutta), the Hon’ble High Court upheld the Revenue’s action in treating gains on sale of penny stock shares as unexplained income under section 68

NARANBHAI SAMATBHAI BHARWAD THROUGH LEGAL HEIR DEVRAJBHAI NARANBHAI BHARWAD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Tr Senthil Kumar

Section 115BBE of the Act. 03. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the Ld.AO in levying interest u/s.234 A/B/C/D of the Act Asst.Year 2017-18 - 2– 04. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the Ld.AO in initiating

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

NEO STRUCTO CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), SURAT NOW THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 351/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Neo Structo Construction Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, 101-104, Gcp Business Centre, Vs. Circle-1(1)(1), Opp. Memnagar Fire Station, Surat. Vijay Cross Road, Now Ahmedabad. The Acit, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacn7717N & आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 496/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 The D.C.I.T, Neo Structo Construction Pvt. Ltd., Circle-3(1)(1), Vs. 101-104, Gcp Business Centre, Ahmedabad. Opp. Memnagar Fire Station, Vijay Cross Road, Ahmedabad.

119 15 13,95,113 13-06-2011 568 This is matured and credited in the bank account and such deposits is not made during this year. 120 116 21,78,678 26-05-2011 588 The FD made is of Rs. 218678 only which is reflected in bank statement and not Rs. 2178678 which is incorrectly mentioned

RD DYNAMECH INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

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

68,760/- for the reason that Form No. 10-IC was not filed along with the return. The assessee filed a rectification petition the same was rejected. 3. Aggrieved against the same, assessee filed Form 10-IC manually on 29.02.2024 explaining though in the statement of total income claiming the new provisions of section 115BAA

ATUL H PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(1),, VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddharatha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2068/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 Atul H. Patel, I.T.O., C/O Jrs Patel & Co., Vs. Ward-4(2)(1), Tnw Business Centre, Vadodara 3Rd Floor, Old Padra Road, Vadodara.

section 68 of the Act and made the addition to the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT-A A.Y. 2012-13 3 6. The assessee before the learned CIT-A submitted that he has accepted gift of ₹ 6.44 lakhs and 5 lakhs from his father and the brother which

GANESH PLANTATIONS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as cross appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 68 of the Act and held that credit of Rs.4 Crore received by the assessee through banking channel during F.Y. 2010-11 from M/s. Sunderdeep Builders lacks in bonafide and nature and source of such credit in books is unsatisfactory. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.4Crore was added to the income previously assessed and brought within the ambit

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. GANESH PLANTATIONS LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as cross appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 68 of the Act and held that credit of Rs.4 Crore received by the assessee through banking channel during F.Y. 2010-11 from M/s. Sunderdeep Builders lacks in bonafide and nature and source of such credit in books is unsatisfactory. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.4Crore was added to the income previously assessed and brought within the ambit

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,621/-. Thus, the Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order in the order of the CIT(A). ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT(OSD) Asst.Years–2009-10, 2010-11, 2008-09, 2014-15 & 2015-16 9. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The assessee company

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,621/-. Thus, the Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order in the order of the CIT(A). ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT(OSD) Asst.Years–2009-10, 2010-11, 2008-09, 2014-15 & 2015-16 9. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The assessee company

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(OSD),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,621/-. Thus, the Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order in the order of the CIT(A). ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT(OSD) Asst.Years–2009-10, 2010-11, 2008-09, 2014-15 & 2015-16 9. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The assessee company

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,621/-. Thus, the Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order in the order of the CIT(A). ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT(OSD) Asst.Years–2009-10, 2010-11, 2008-09, 2014-15 & 2015-16 9. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The assessee company

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,621/-. Thus, the Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order in the order of the CIT(A). ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT(OSD) Asst.Years–2009-10, 2010-11, 2008-09, 2014-15 & 2015-16 9. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The assessee company

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,621/-. Thus, the Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order in the order of the CIT(A). ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT(OSD) Asst.Years–2009-10, 2010-11, 2008-09, 2014-15 & 2015-16 9. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The assessee company