JAS INFRASPACE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,93,96,668/- instead of deleting the same in entirety. 50. There was a survey operation under section 133A

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JAS INFRASPACE PRIVATE LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,93,96,668/- instead of deleting the same in entirety. 50. There was a survey operation under section 133A

M/S. ARIHANT JEWELS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

133A of the Act was carried out on 8th December, 2014 at the business premises of the assessee. On physical verification of the stock, survey team has found stock of jewelery to the amount of Rs. 18,26,797/- as against stock shown in the books to the amount of Rs. 1,78,92,962/-, there was shortage of stock

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

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

PATEL WINES,KHEDA vs. THE DY.CIT, KHEDA CIRCLE, NADIAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") was conducted on 17.03.2017 at the business premises of the assessee, M/s. Patel Wines. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had deposited substantial cash amounting to ₹1,65,81,880/- in its HDFC Bank account during the demonetization period, out of which

SAKARIYA METAL ROLLING MILLS,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(10), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddharatha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 34/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2015-2016 Sakariya Metal Rolling Mills, I.T.O., 257, Gujrat Vapraj Mahamandal, Vs. Ward-3(3)(10), Vasahat, S.P. Ring Road, Ahmedabad. Odhav, Ahmedabad-382415. Pan: Aadfs3443A

133A of the Act wherein the word MARA was recorded which is a Gujarati word and its translation in English stands as MY. Based on this, the learned AR contended that the impugned piece of document belongs to the partner of the firm. We are not again convinced with the argument of the learned AR for the assessee

SAKET M JAINI(HUF),AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-5, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 579/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Saket M. Jain (Huf), The Pr. Commissioner Of 403, 3Rd Eye Two, Vs. Income Tax-2, Nr. Joyalukkas Show Room, Ahmedabad. Opp. Parimal Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad.

68 of the Act. 7.1 In view of the above the Learned Pr. CIT held the assessment order framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act vide order dated 26/12/2016 Asstt. Year 2009-10 6 as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and directed the AO for De-novo assessment. 8. Being

DUSHYANT SHANTILAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

sections": [ "143(3)", "133A", "143(2)", "142(1)", "68", "69", "69A", "270A", "271AAC", "234A", "234B", "234C", "234D", "250" ], "issues

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

133A of the\nI.T. Act. In view of the above facts, it is found that the Assessing Officer\nhas finalised the assessment without verification or inquiry on the above\nissues which should have been made during the course of assessment\nproceedings. Accordingly, the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act\nfor the A.Y. 2017-18 passed

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

133A of the\nI.T. Act. In view of the above facts, it is found that the Assessing Officer\nhas finalised the assessment without verification or inquiry on the above\nissues which should have been made during the course of assessment\nproceedings. Accordingly, the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act\nfor the A.Y. 2017-18 passed

SABBIRALI ALIMIYA SAIYED,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 904/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-15 वष"

68 of the Act by furnishing the details with respect to the identity of the party, genuineness of the transactions and sources of the funds received on the sale of shares. A.Y. 2014-15 4 4.4 The assessee regarding the statement of Shri Sanjay Vora- of M/s Anand Rathi Shares & Stock Brokers Limited recorded under section

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AWAS DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 368/Ahd/2020 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T, M/S Awas Developers, Central Circle-1(4), Vs. “Agam Buglows” Ahmedabad. Opp. Subhash Society, Sanand-Kalol Road, Ahmedabad.

section 133A of the Act dated 04-03-2010. During the survey, the statement of Shri Ganshayamsingh Vaghela, a partner of the firm was recorded. In the statement, Shri Ganshayamsingh Vaghela in response to question No. 6 explained that the assessee has undertaken a project namely “Agam Bungalows” consisting of 40 Bungalows. 37 Bungalows out of 40 have already

M/S. YUSUFBHAI & CO.,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), VADODARA

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

133A of the Act. As a result of survey certain documents were seized and subsequently based on those documents the assessee admitted an income of Rs. 20 lakhs on account of receivables. But the assessee in its income tax return did not disclose such income. Therefore the addition was made by the AO which was subsequently confirmed by the Ld.CIT

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAWAN ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SURESHKUMAR PERIWAL (PAN AFTPP6547D, AHEMDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleit(Ss)A No. 153/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sureshkumar Periwal Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Prop. Of M/S. Shyam Bullion, Income-Tax, 113, First Floor, National Central Circle-1(2), Plaza, Opp. Lal Bungalows, Ahmedabad Cg Road, Ahmedabad [Pan : Aftpp 6547 D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Sureshkumar Periwal Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Prop. Of M/S. Shyam Bullion, Income-Tax, 113, First Floor, National Central Circle-1(2), Plaza, Opp. Lal Bungalows, Ahmedabad Cg Road, Ahmedabad [Pan : Aftpp 6547 D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit-Dr & Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Shri Biren Shah, Ar Date Of Hearing 12.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.04.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

68 of the Act on account of unexplained credit in the books of accounts. 4. Meanwhile, a survey under section 133A

SHAILESH S. JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

133A of the Act at the office remises of Shirish Chandrakant Shah situated at 229, First Floor, Bokadia House, Princess Street, Mumbai on 09.04.2013, it was also established that Shirish Chandrakant Shah manages volume, price of the scrips of the listed companies managed by him through synchronized trading. Further, during the course of survey at Dwarka Ashish Building various sauda