THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SANKALP IN, AHMEDABAD

In the result Revenue's Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, Judicial Member\nAnd\nShri NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA (Accountant Member)

68\n(unexplained credits) and 69C (unexplained expenditure) of the\nAct. Further the Ld DR stated that there are violations of provisions of\nthe Act and the assessee has not provided the details of expenses\nwhich will determine whether they are incurred wholly and\nexclusively for the purpose of business; whether they are of capital\nor revenue in nature

SANKALP IN,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result Revenue’s Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA (Accountant Member)

68 (unexplained credits) and 69C (unexplained expenditure) of the Act. Further the Ld DR stated that there are violations of provisions of the Act and the assessee has not provided the details of expenses which will determine whether they are incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business; whether they are of capital or revenue in nature and therefore

M/S. VENUS INFRABUILD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68, 71 to 79 of the assessment order. He pointed out that there were certain messages recovered by the Revenue, and these messages were on the direction of Director i.e. Shri Dilipkumar Lalwani. According to him, these are not dumb documents. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the order of the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in the case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI DEEPAK KUMAR VASWANI,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68, 71 to 79 of the assessment order. He pointed out that there were certain messages recovered by the Revenue, and these messages were on the direction of Director i.e. Shri Dilipkumar Lalwani. According to him, these are not dumb documents. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the order of the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in the case

SHRI DEEPAK BUDHARMAL VASWANI,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68, 71 to 79 of the assessment order. He pointed out that there were certain messages recovered by the Revenue, and these messages were on the direction of Director i.e. Shri Dilipkumar Lalwani. According to him, these are not dumb documents. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the order of the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in the case

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI RAJESH SUNDERDAS VASWANI, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68, 71 to 79 of the assessment order. He pointed out that there were certain messages recovered by the Revenue, and these messages were on the direction of Director i.e. Shri Dilipkumar Lalwani. According to him, these are not dumb documents. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the order of the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in the case

SHRI ASHOK SUNDERDAS VASWANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68, 71 to 79 of the assessment order. He pointed out that there were certain messages recovered by the Revenue, and these messages were on the direction of Director i.e. Shri Dilipkumar Lalwani. According to him, these are not dumb documents. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the order of the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in the case

M/S. VENUS INFRABUILD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68, 71 to 79 of the assessment order. He pointed out that there were certain messages recovered by the Revenue, and these messages were on the direction of Director i.e. Shri Dilipkumar Lalwani. According to him, these are not dumb documents. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the order of the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in the case

SHRI RAJESH SUNDERDAS VASWANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68, 71 to 79 of the assessment order. He pointed out that there were certain messages recovered by the Revenue, and these messages were on the direction of Director i.e. Shri Dilipkumar Lalwani. According to him, these are not dumb documents. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the order of the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in the case

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ASHOK SUNDERDAS VASWANI, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68, 71 to 79 of the assessment order. He pointed out that there were certain messages recovered by the Revenue, and these messages were on the direction of Director i.e. Shri Dilipkumar Lalwani. According to him, these are not dumb documents. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the order of the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in the case

M/S. VENUS INFRABUILD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68, 71 to 79 of the assessment order. He pointed out that there were certain messages recovered by the Revenue, and these messages were on the direction of Director i.e. Shri Dilipkumar Lalwani. According to him, these are not dumb documents. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the order of the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in the case

SHRI SHAILESH S. PATEL,,PALANPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5,, PALANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3063/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

68 to 69D). ITA No. 3063/Ahd/16 [Shailesh S. Patel vs.ITO] AY 2012-13 - 4 - 2. I have therefore, reason to believe that income chargeable to tax exceeding Rs.1,22,24,800/- has escaped assessment for A.Y. 2012-13 and intend to reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee

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

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee