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

133A), which mandates that the contents of such impounded documents are to be presumed to be true. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts by invoking and travelling to the provisions of section 34 of the Evidence Act (which is with respect to the entries in books of accounts) when the relevant section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JAS INFRA SPACE PRIVATE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

133A), which mandates that the contents of such impounded documents are to be presumed to be true. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts by invoking and travelling to the provisions of section 34 of the Evidence Act (which is with respect to the entries in books of accounts) when the relevant section

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

5 M/s. Arihant Jewels vs. ITO year profit to be taxed arrived at Rs. 29,530/- because of financial charges to the amount of Rs. 74,63,173/- debited to the P & L A/c and break up given in schedule 7 of the P & L A/c. In this regard, the ld. counsel has referred page no. 46 of the paper

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

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. N K PROTEINS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

133A of the Act. In the statement recorded, he explained in detail the trading activities carried out by N.K. Proteins Ltd. as well as its subsidiary concerns on the platform of National Spot Exchange Ltd. He stated that in the year 2008, M/s. N.K. Proteins Ltd. became the member of National Spot Exchange Ltd. The subsidiary concerns

N K PROTEINS PVT. LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

133A of the Act. In the statement recorded, he explained in detail the trading activities carried out by N.K. Proteins Ltd. as well as its subsidiary concerns on the platform of National Spot Exchange Ltd. He stated that in the year 2008, M/s. N.K. Proteins Ltd. became the member of National Spot Exchange Ltd. The subsidiary concerns

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.

5 23.12.16. Hence once the sale of the supplier to the assessee and purchase of the customer from the assessee has been accepted as genuine, then the same cannot be held as bogus in assessee’s case. Based on the above submission assessee contended that the order passed by the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest

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

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. 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

5– ACIT (2025) 173 taxmann.com 172 (Madras), wherein it was held that mere declaration of unaccounted receipts as commission or business income without satisfactory explanation of the source would attract section 69A and the special rate of tax under section 115BBE. The CIT(A) also placed reliance on Manoj Aggarwal v. DCIT

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

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 of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee as on 07.02.2020 and on the basis of information available on insight portal the Assessing Officer reopened the case of the assessee and a notice

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

133A of the Act is not relevant as he is not connected with the assessee. Rather, the statement of Shri Jitesh Patel supports the case of the assessee as he admitted that he has come on behalf of the client company to verify the clinical trials carried out by the assessee. 39.4 Similarly, the learned CIT (A) held that

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

133A of the Act is not relevant as he is not connected with the assessee. Rather, the statement of Shri Jitesh Patel supports the case of the assessee as he admitted that he has come on behalf of the client company to verify the clinical trials carried out by the assessee. 39.4 Similarly, the learned CIT (A) held that