SHRI NARENDRA B. PATEL,,SABARKANTHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, HIMATNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3153/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Narendra B. Patel, I.T.O., 592, Pampaliva Vas, Vs. Ward-2, Moyad, Himatnagar. Sabarkantha-383110. Pan: Asupp6989M

120/- from the agricultural activity. Hence ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 28. The last issue raised by the assessee is that if any addition is sustained under the provisions of section 68

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

68,00,000/- for different years) in the purchase of land for A.Y.2014-15.” 9. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is an educational institution registered under section 25 of the companies Act 1956. The assessee company was incorporated as on 24th November 2011 with the object of imparting education. Subsequently the assessee, acquired

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

68,00,000/- for different years) in the purchase of land for A.Y.2014-15.” 9. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is an educational institution registered under section 25 of the companies Act 1956. The assessee company was incorporated as on 24th November 2011 with the object of imparting education. Subsequently the assessee, acquired

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

68,00,000/- for different years) in the purchase of land for A.Y.2014-15.” 9. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is an educational institution registered under section 25 of the companies Act 1956. The assessee company was incorporated as on 24th November 2011 with the object of imparting education. Subsequently the assessee, acquired

SMT. PARAMADEVI TEKRIWAL, ,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(5),, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. Paramadevi Tekriwal, The Income-Tax Officer, D-143, Kaliyabid, Bhavnagar Vs Ward 1(5), Pan : Addpt 3030 F Bhavnagar अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad (“Cit(A)” In Short) Dated 09.07.2018. 2. The Relevant Facts Of The Case Giving Rise To This Appeal Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Who Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Originally On 16.03.2014. Although The Said Return Was Originally Accepted Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short), The Assessment Was Subsequently Reopened By The Assessing Officer On The Basis Of Information Received From Investigation Wing Of The Income-Tax Department That The Long Term Capital Gains Of Rs.1,13,53,982/- Arising From The Sale Of Equity Shares Of Kgn Enterprise Ltd. For A Consideration Of Rs.1,13,87,902/- Claimed As Exempt In The Return Of Income Was Bogus & It Was Actually An Accommodation Entry. The Assessing Officer Accordingly Issued A Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act To Smt. Paramadevi Tekriwal Vs. Ito Ay : 2013-14 2

section 68 of the Act, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year the same may be charged to income- lax as the income of the assessee of that previous year if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source (hereof is, in the opinion of the Assessing

ALPA UDAYKUMAR SHAH,,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2),, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Memebr

section 68 of the Act., where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year the same may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year if the explanation offered by the assessee about the natue and source thereof is, in the opinion of the Assessing

INCOME TAX OFFICER, VEJAPUR vs. DARSHAN ORNA LIMITED, NAVRANGPURA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1606/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Income Tax Officer Darshan Orna Limited बनाम/ Vejalpur 102, Shri Balaju Paragon V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 015 C.G. Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aadcd 7142 E अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

120/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS, and notice under section 143(2) was issued. The primary reason for selection of the case for scrutiny was stated as: “Abnormal increase in cash deposits during demonetization period as compared to pre-demonetization period.” During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee had deposited cash

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA. vs. TRUFORM TECHNO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 68 of the. Act were duly submitted during the course of assessment proceedings itself. It therefore appears that the addition has been made purely on the basis of surmises and conjectures because the appellant had already proved the genuineness of the credit entries. No addition can be made on the basis of assumptions and presumptions and that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. TRUFORM TECHNO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 68 of the. Act were duly submitted during the course of assessment proceedings itself. It therefore appears that the addition has been made purely on the basis of surmises and conjectures because the appellant had already proved the genuineness of the credit entries. No addition can be made on the basis of assumptions and presumptions and that

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

THE ITO, WARD-2(4),, BARODA vs. M/S. NAVIN CHANDRA & CO.,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2008-09 Income-Tax Officer, M/S. Navin Chandra & Co., Ward 2(4), Vs 120, Fortune Tower, Baroda Sayajiganj, Baroda-390005 Pan : Aabfn 4962 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Purshottam Kumar, Sr. Dr Assessee By : Shri Bhavin Marfatia, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10/05/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/06/2022

120, Fortune Tower, Baroda Sayajiganj, Baroda-390005 PAN : AABFN 4962 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Purshottam Kumar, Sr. DR Assessee by : Shri Bhavin Marfatia, AR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 10/05/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 15/06/2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT: This appeal is preferred

JYOTI LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1120 /Ahd/2018 Asstt.Year : 2013-14 Jyoti Limited Dcit, Cir.1(1)(2) Nanubhai Amin Marg Vs Baroda. Industrial Area, Baroda Pan : Aaacj 4909 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Tanwani, Cit-Dr

120; (b) “record shall include and shall be deemed always to have included all records relating to any proceeding under this Act available at the time of examination by the Commissioner; (c) where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer had been the subject matter of any appeal filed on or before

SHAILESH K PATEL-HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 288/Ahd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) िनधा"रण वष" Shailesh K. Patel Huf The Income Tax Officer बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Ward – 3(3)(5), Vs. Advocate Ahmedabad 512, Time Square – I, Op. Ram Baug Bungalow, Thaltej Shilaj Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aalhs9548E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Ketan Shah & Shri Aman Shah, अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : A.Rs. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. Dr 04/06/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 18/06/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 24.01.2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 68 of the Act in the assessment order. Before we adjudicate the grounds taken by the assessee, it would be relevant to re-capitulate the facts of the case. Brief facts of the case: 4. The return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 was filed by the assessee on 15.02.2016 declaring total income of Rs.4,78,120

SHRI ARVINDBHAI POPATLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Memebr

120 to 135 where the valuation report was placed. 7.2 On the other hand the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 8. We have heard the rival contentions, and the perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, the assessee transferred two properties being land and bungalow and the cost of the same as on 1 April

VASHISTHA MAHESHBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MAHESHBHAI AMRUTBHAI PATEL,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3, GANDHINAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Maheshbhai Amrutbhai Patel Ito, Ward-3 Shiva Sadan, Vs Gandhinagar. Opp: Uma Sanskar Tirth National Highway-8 Chandrala, Dist. Gandhinagar Pan : Adzpp 6022 B

section 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credits. 5. Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee stated that he had furnished evidences of the genuineness of the source of some parties and since he was abroad during assessment proceedings could not furnish 3 evidences of the remaining loan creditors. He filed additional evidences to prove their genuineness. The ld.CIT

ADANI AGRO PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee appeal is thus allowed

Bench: Shri O. P. Meena& Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 68/ 56(2) of the Act, then it will be subject to tax in the hands of ABC Ltd. Thus the value of share price along with premium at the most can be brought to tax in the hands of the ABC Ltd if it fails to justify the same. Adani Agro Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year

AURA SECURITIES PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

section 68/ 56(2) of the Act, then it will be subject to tax in the hands of ABC Ltd. Thus the value of share price along with premium at the most can be brought to tax in the hands of the ABC Ltd if it fails to justify the same. Now Mr. X sales the shares

AURA SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

section 68/ 56(2) of the Act, then it will be subject to tax in the hands of ABC Ltd. Thus the value of share price along with premium at the most can be brought to tax in the hands of the ABC Ltd if it fails to justify the same. Now Mr. X sales the shares