M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

68 of the Act can be made on alleged difference in closing balance of creditor in assessee’s books viz-a-viz creditor books. However the CIT(A) found that difference in closing balance arises due to proceeds of cash sale of Rs. 5,40,17,485/- which were directly deposited to the bank of creditor M/s KFIL without recording

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

68 of the Act can be made on alleged difference in closing balance of creditor in assessee’s books viz-a-viz creditor books. However the CIT(A) found that difference in closing balance arises due to proceeds of cash sale of Rs. 5,40,17,485/- which were directly deposited to the bank of creditor M/s KFIL without recording

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-12,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

68 of the Act can be made on alleged difference in closing balance of creditor in assessee’s books viz-a-viz creditor books. However the CIT(A) found that difference in closing balance arises due to proceeds of cash sale of Rs. 5,40,17,485/- which were directly deposited to the bank of creditor M/s KFIL without recording

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,VII,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

68 of the Act can be made on alleged difference in closing balance of creditor in assessee’s books viz-a-viz creditor books. However the CIT(A) found that difference in closing balance arises due to proceeds of cash sale of Rs. 5,40,17,485/- which were directly deposited to the bank of creditor M/s KFIL without recording

THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

68 of the Act can be made on alleged difference in closing balance of creditor in assessee’s books viz-a-viz creditor books. However the CIT(A) found that difference in closing balance arises due to proceeds of cash sale of Rs. 5,40,17,485/- which were directly deposited to the bank of creditor M/s KFIL without recording

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

section 14A of\nthe Act was warranted.\n16. The AR placed reliance on following judicial precedents:\nSouth Indian Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT - [2022] 130 taxmann.com 178] (SC)\nCIT Vs. UTI Bank Ltd. - [2022] 142 taxmann.com 136 (SC)\nAxis Bank Ltd. Vs. ACIT - [2024] 166 taxmann.com 348 (ITAT\nAhmedabad)\n17. The AR also drew our attention to the relevant financial

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

section 14A of\nthe Act was warranted.\n16.\nThe AR placed reliance on following judicial precedents:\nSouth Indian Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT - [2022] 130 taxmann.com 178] (SC)\nCIT Vs. UTI Bank Ltd. - [2022] 142 taxmann.com 136 (SC)\nAxis Bank Ltd. Vs. ACIT\n[2024] 166 taxmann.com 348 (ITAT\nAhmedabad)\n17.\nThe AR also drew our attention to the relevant

PARTH DINESH PATEL,MEHSANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, PATAN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.137/Ahd/2024 & 138/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Parth Dinesh Patel The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 18/19, Utkarsh Society Ward-1, V/S. Opp. Market Yard Patan – 384 265 Tal. Visnagar, Mehsana Gujarat – 384 315 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bwrpp 7811 A (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhinal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 01.12.2023 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Arising Out Of Reassessment Orders Framed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], By The National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer /Ao”] For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2015–16 & 2016–17, Respectively. As The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common

130 bank accounts to deposit cash and subsequently issued cheques to various beneficiaries, including the assessee. In response to the information, notices under section 148 were issued on 31st March 2021 in both years, and reassessment proceedings were initiated. In case of both the years, the assessee filed return of income on 27.04.2021 in response to notice

THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VADODARA vs. PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD., VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

section 14A of\nthe Act was warranted.\n16.\nThe AR placed reliance on following judicial precedents:\nSouth Indian Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT - [2022] 130 taxmann.com 178] (SC)\nCIT Vs. UTI Bank Ltd. - [2022] 142 taxmann.com 136 (SC)\nAxis Bank Ltd. Vs. ACIT - [2024] 166 taxmann.com 348 (ITAT\nAhmedabad)\n17.\nThe AR also drew our attention to the relevant financial

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

PARTH DINESH PATEL,MEHSANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, PATAN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

130 bank accounts to deposit cash and\nsubsequently issued cheques to various beneficiaries, including the assessee.\nIn response to the information, notices under section 148 were issued on 31st\nMarch 2021 in both years, and reassessment proceedings were initiated. In\ncase of both the years, the assessee filed return of income on 27.04.2021 in\nresponse to notice

PARK PARADISE,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member\nAnd Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nITA Nos.207 & 208/Ahd/2022\nAssessment Year 2017-18\nPark Plaza\nNr. Saurabh Park,\nGotri-Samata, Road,\nGotri Vadodara\nGujarat-390021\nPAN: AAPFP6647K\nVs\nThe PCIT,\nVadodara-1,\nVadodara\nPark Paradise\nPlot No. 75,\nNr. Billa Bong School,\nVadsar, Vadodara\nGujarat-390010\nPAN: AASFP0787D\n(Appellant)\nVs\nThe PCIT,\nVadodara-1,\nVadodara\n(Respondent)\nAssessee Represented: Shri M.J. Shah, Adv. &\nS

130/-. There was a survey action u/s.133A of the Act\ncarried out in the premises of the assessee on 29-09-2016 wherein\nphysical stock to the tune of Rs.30,11,941/- was found. The\nassessee admitted the above as undisclosed income in the\nstatement recorded during the course of survey proceedings,\nhowever the assessee offered Rs.30,00,000/- only

PARK PLAZA,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member\nAnd Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\n\nITA Nos.207 & 208/Ahd/2022\nAssessment Year 2017-18\n\n| Park Plaza\n| Nr. Saurabh Park,\n| Gotri-Samata, Road,\n| Gotri Vadodara\n| Gujarat-390021\n| PAN: AAPFP6647K\n| Park Paradise\n| Plot No. 75,\n| Nr. Billa Bong School,\n| Vadsar, Vadodara\n| Gujarat-390010\n| PAN: AASFP0787D\n| (Appellant)\n\n| The PCIT,\n| Vadodara-1,\nVs Vadodara\n\n| Vs The PCIT,\n| Vadodara-1,\n| Vadodara\n| (Respondent)\n\nA

130/-. There was a survey action u/s.133A of the Act\ncarried out in the premises of the assessee on 29-09-2016 wherein\nphysical stock to the tune of Rs.30,11,941/- was found. The\nassessee admitted the above as undisclosed income in the\nstatement recorded during the course of survey proceedings,\nhowever the assessee offered Rs.30,00,000/- only

SHRI SUBHASH BECHULAL SONI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-6(4),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 220/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Subhash Bechulal Soni, I.T.O., B/H Shahwadi Bus Stand, Vs. Ward-6(4), Shahwadi, Ahmedabad. Narol, Ahmedabad-382405. Pan: Adzps9498J

130 ITR 129 wherein it was held as under: A.Y. 2009-10 8 The Tribunal had, however, held that the field of operation of section 68

GULAMNABI NURAMAHMADBHAI MOMIN,PLOT vs. ITO WARD 3(2)(2), PRATAYASHKAR BHAVAN

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1059/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Gulamnabi Nuramahmadbhai The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Momin Ward-3(2)(2) V/S. 524A, Opp. Adarsh Hospital Ahmedabad Nr. Telav Shela Cross Road At Telav, Sanand 382 110 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Apepm 7307 M अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.D. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Dated 29.12.2023, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Primary Grievance Of The Assessee Pertains To The Addition Of Rs.40,00,000/- Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] Made By The Assessing Officer As Per His Order Dated 09/12/2019 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act. Gulamnabi Nuramahmadbhai Momin Asst. Year : 2017-18

130/-), after making the additions of Rs.40,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit and Rs.1,74,09,917/- as unexplained income. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC of the Act in respect of the unexplained income added under section 68

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. The AO also held that the transaction of LTCG was a sham transaction only to bring its own unaccounted money in the guise of exempted LTCG and only paper work was done to give a color of authenticity to the transactions by creating a façade of legitimate transactions. ITA No. 288/Ahd/2019 (Shailesh K Patel

M/S GREENWELL ORCHARDS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-3 , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

130 taxmann.com 294 (SC) wherein the SLP filed by the Revenue was dismissed as follows: Section 69 read with section of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investments (Unsecured loans) - Asst year 2013-14 - Assessee-company had received unsecured loans from two different companies - Commissioner noting that said loans were shown as investment in I.T.A No. 695/Ahd/2019

DHARMANANDAN DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 68 of the IT Act, which provides that the sum so credited in the books and which is not sufficiently explained may be charged to the income tax as income of the assessee of "that previous year " also lends support to the contentions of Dr. Daniel. 13. For all the aforesaid reasons, we answer the first substantial question