ITO WARD-4(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. VALLEY COMTRADE PVT LTD ( EARLIER KNOWN AS JHAWAR COMTRADE PVT. LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddharatha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2034/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 I.T.O, M/S. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., Ward-4(1)(4), Vs. (Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Ahmedabad. Pvt. Ltd.,) C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli Bmw Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aadcs3553N & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 68/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 M/S. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O, (Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Vs. Ward-1(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd.,) Surat. C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli Bmw Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aadcs3553N

68 of the Act. However, the assessee failed to do so insofar the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the parties is concern. The learned DR in support of his contention has also made reference to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. [2019] 103 taxmann.com

JHAVERI TRADING AND INVESTMENT PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENT. CIR. 1(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 401 To 403/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2012-2013 To 2014-2015) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 399 & 400/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2010-2011 & 2011-12)

section 68 of the Act, we note that the Revenue has not challenged the submission of the assessee that such borrowing has been repaid to the companies. In this respect, we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rohini builders reported in 256 ITR 360 wherein

JHAVERI TRADING AND INVESTMENT PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENT. CIR. 1(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 401 To 403/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2012-2013 To 2014-2015) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 399 & 400/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2010-2011 & 2011-12)

section 68 of the Act, we note that the Revenue has not challenged the submission of the assessee that such borrowing has been repaid to the companies. In this respect, we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rohini builders reported in 256 ITR 360 wherein

JHAVERI TRADING AND INVESTMENT PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENT. CIR. 1(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 401 To 403/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2012-2013 To 2014-2015) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 399 & 400/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2010-2011 & 2011-12)

section 68 of the Act, we note that the Revenue has not challenged the submission of the assessee that such borrowing has been repaid to the companies. In this respect, we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rohini builders reported in 256 ITR 360 wherein

JHAVERI TRADING AND INVESTMENT PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENT. CIR. 1(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 401 To 403/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2012-2013 To 2014-2015) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 399 & 400/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2010-2011 & 2011-12)

section 68 of the Act, we note that the Revenue has not challenged the submission of the assessee that such borrowing has been repaid to the companies. In this respect, we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rohini builders reported in 256 ITR 360 wherein

JHAVERI TRADING AND INVESTMENT PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENT. CIR. 1(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 401 To 403/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2012-2013 To 2014-2015) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 399 & 400/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2010-2011 & 2011-12)

section 68 of the Act, we note that the Revenue has not challenged the submission of the assessee that such borrowing has been repaid to the companies. In this respect, we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rohini builders reported in 256 ITR 360 wherein

SHRI SANDIP BHARATBHAI VADODARIYA,BHAVANAGAR vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-2, BHAVNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddharatha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1144/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Shri Sandip Bharatbhai Vadodariya, D.C.I.T., Jawaharnagar, Paliyad Road, Vs. Circle-2, Botad, Bhavnagar. Bhavnagar.

127/- only, source of which was not explained. Therefore the AO treated the same as unexplained investments in the assessment framed under section 147 read with section 144 of the Act dated 15th November 2018. 4.1 Subsequently, the assessee filed rectification application before the AO under section 154 of the Act dated 11th December 2018 against

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

68 of the Act are applicable with respect to the transactions recorded in the books of accounts. As regards the expenses in the given facts and circumstances, the provisions of section 69C of the Act cannot be applicable as the source of the expenses is emanating from the same seized document. In other words, one of the precondition

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

68 of the Act are applicable with respect to the transactions recorded in the books of accounts. As regards the expenses in the given facts and circumstances, the provisions of section 69C of the Act cannot be applicable as the source of the expenses is emanating from the same seized document. In other words, one of the precondition

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

68 of the Act are applicable with respect to the transactions recorded in the books of accounts. As regards the expenses in the given facts and circumstances, the provisions of section 69C of the Act cannot be applicable as the source of the expenses is emanating from the same seized document. In other words, one of the precondition

BHAVANJI JUGAJI THAKOR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

127 of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in making addition of Rs.34,30,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68

VEENITA ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

section 68. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed against the order of High Court. 25. Again, the Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Thomas v, ITO [2021] 127

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

section 68. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed against the order of High Court. 6.2 Again, the Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Thomas v, ITO [2021] 127

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AASHNA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 417/Ahd/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2018-2019 Income Tax Officer, M/S Aashna Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ward-1(1)(1), Vs. 301, Satkar Complex, Ahmedabad. Off C.G Road, Near Lal Bunglow, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aabca9995Q

section 68 of the Act in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Ojas Tarmake (P) Ltd. reported in 156 taxmann.com 375 where it was held as under: What is evident is that the Tribunal found on facts that the amount of loan received by the assessee was returned

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 147 of the Act were held by us to be bad in law. 25. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in ITA No. 249/Ahd/2023 for A.Y. 2016-17. Assessment Year 2016-17 (Department’s Appeal) (ITA No. 325/Ahd/2023) 26. The Department has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. In the facts

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 147 of the Act were held by us to be bad in law. 25. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in ITA No. 249/Ahd/2023 for A.Y. 2016-17. Assessment Year 2016-17 (Department’s Appeal) (ITA No. 325/Ahd/2023) 26. The Department has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. In the facts

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 147 of the Act were held by us to be bad in law. 25. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in ITA No. 249/Ahd/2023 for A.Y. 2016-17. Assessment Year 2016-17 (Department’s Appeal) (ITA No. 325/Ahd/2023) 26. The Department has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. In the facts

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 147 of the Act were held by us to be bad in law. 25. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in ITA No. 249/Ahd/2023 for A.Y. 2016-17. Assessment Year 2016-17 (Department’s Appeal) (ITA No. 325/Ahd/2023) 26. The Department has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. In the facts