M/S. SOFTTOUCH COSMETIC (MKTG.) PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(2),, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

124 taxmann.com 202 (SC) dismissed SLP against High Court ruling that where Tribunal deleted addition under section 68 made

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

PROLIFE INDUSTRIES LTD.,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

124/- paid to M/s. ANR Finance Limited and Rs. 9,89,589/- paid to M/s. Kanungo Financiers Limited and demanded tax thereon. 2.1 Aggrieved against the reassessment orders, the Assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who confirmed the addition by observing as follows: “3.17 As regards the documents of the two alleged lenders, submitted by the appellant before

PROLIFE INDUSTRIES LTD.,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

124/- paid to M/s. ANR Finance Limited and Rs. 9,89,589/- paid to M/s. Kanungo Financiers Limited and demanded tax thereon. 2.1 Aggrieved against the reassessment orders, the Assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who confirmed the addition by observing as follows: “3.17 As regards the documents of the two alleged lenders, submitted by the appellant before

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

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

124 taxmann.com 246 (Delhi) wherein Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that: “13. The Court finds that in none of the above grounds is there any reference to any inquiry conducted by the AO of the CIT (A) on examining the above documents, which were available with the AO. The crucial element of explaining how, on the basis of such

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

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

124 taxmann.com 246 (Delhi) wherein Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that: “13. The Court finds that in none of the above grounds is there any reference to any inquiry conducted by the AO of the CIT (A) on examining the above documents, which were available with the AO. The crucial element of explaining how, on the basis of such

THE JCIT (OSD), CIRELCE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. MIEZA SCHOOL PVT. LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS ARIHANT ARCADE PVT. LTD), SURAT

In the result, ground number 2 of the Revenue’s appeal is hereby dismissed

68 of the Act. I.T.A No. 772/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No. 8 JCIT(OSD) vs. Mieza School Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as Arihant Arcade Pvt. Ltd.) 7.2 In the result, ground number 1 of the Revenue’s appeal is hereby dismissed. 7.3 So far as the additions in relation to section 14A of the Act are concerned

HARESHGIRI PRATAPGIRI GAUSHVAMI,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), BHAVNAGAR

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

124 taxmann.com 202 (SC) dismissed SLP against High Court ruling that where Tribunal deleted addition under section 68 made

PRAKASH GOVINDBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

124 taxmann.com 202 (SC) dismissed SLP against High Court ruling that where Tribunal deleted addition under section 68 made

PRAKASH GOVINDBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

124 taxmann.com 202 (SC) dismissed SLP against High Court ruling that where Tribunal deleted addition under section 68 made

PRAKASH GOVINDBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

124 taxmann.com 202 (SC) dismissed SLP against High Court ruling that where Tribunal deleted addition under section 68 made

M/S. 9TH STREET ARCHITECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68 is not directly applicable, unexplained cash or credits may be taxed as deemed income under sections 69 or 69B, and that it is not necessary for the revenue to identify the precise section if the assessee fails to explain the source. Further reliance was placed on Dr. Prakash Tiwari v. CIT (1984) 148 ITR 474 (MP), Namdev

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68 of the Act. The addition is required to be deleted. 4.1 In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition relying upon statement of Mr.Chirag Thakkar, ex employee and Bharat Padiya, ex director of Dishman Group and such statements are already disowned by Dishman Group

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68 of the Act. The addition is required to be deleted. 4.1 In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition relying upon statement of Mr.Chirag Thakkar, ex employee and Bharat Padiya, ex director of Dishman Group and such statements are already disowned by Dishman Group

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68 of the Act. The addition is required to be deleted. 4.1 In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition relying upon statement of Mr.Chirag Thakkar, ex employee and Bharat Padiya, ex director of Dishman Group and such statements are already disowned by Dishman Group

M/S.HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1 , AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

68, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Gift) - Assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09- Assessee received certain amount as gifts from his father and sister who were non-residents in India Assessing Officer after making detailed enquiries, took a view that assessee had duly proved identity, source and creditworthiness of donors Commissioner

M/S. BODAL CHEMICALS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

124, Phase-I, GIDC, Income-tax, Vatva, Ahmedabad, Central Circle-1(1), Gujarat-382445 Ahmedabad [PAN : AAACD 5352 M] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S.S. Nagar, AR Respondent by: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing 17.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 13.02.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- This appeal has been filed

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

68/ 69A of the IT Act and no expenditure is allowable against such income as per provision 115BBE of the IT Act. (emphasis is supplied on para 8.31 of appellate order). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of receipts