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

68. The next issue raised by the assessee in ground no. 6 of its appeal is that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1.5 Lacs under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 69. At the outset we note that the learned AR before us submitted that he was directed by the appellant

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

68. The next issue raised by the assessee in ground no. 6 of its appeal is that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1.5 Lacs under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 69. At the outset we note that the learned AR before us submitted that he was directed by the appellant

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

68. The next issue raised by the assessee in ground no. 6 of its appeal is that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1.5 Lacs under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 69. At the outset we note that the learned AR before us submitted that he was directed by the appellant

SWASTIK DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-2018 Swastik Developers The Ito, Ward-3(3)(5), 21, Swastik House Vs. Ahmedabad. B/H.Sardar Patel Stadium Ahmedabad. Pan : Acyfs 0641 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Prashant Shrivastav, Ar Assessee By : Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/08/2025

68. Both additions were taxed under section 115BBE and penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) were separately initiated. 3.4 The assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) against the order of the AO. By way of written submissions, the assessee explained that the firm was constituted on 09.11.2015 and had entered into a registered agreement for purchase of land

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 of the act for share money of Chaturbhai G Patel? 5. In view of order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Lovely Exports (P.)Ltd. [Application No. 11993 of 2007, dated 11-1-2008], whether Ld. AO has erred in treating the share money as unexplained credit of the assessee when identity

VISHAL VEDPRAKASH CHIRIPAL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,850/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. In the course of assessment, the AO found that the assessee had claimed deduction of interest expenses of Rs.1,33,67,138/- under Section

VISHAL VEDPRAKASH CHIRIPAL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,850/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. In the course of assessment, the AO found that the assessee had claimed deduction of interest expenses of Rs.1,33,67,138/- under Section

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

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 by the AO and submitted that this provision was not at all attracted as the AO had not added the entire sale consideration which was credited to the books of accounts. Submission of the Revenue: 10. Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Ld. SR-DR appearing for the Revenue submitted that there is no dispute

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

section 143(3) of the Act. 16.9 On perusal of the ledgers of the laborers we note that the payment was made by the assessee periodically after the deduction of TDS. Thus, the assessee cannot be penalized if the laborers have raised the bills at the end of the accounting year. 16.10 We also note that the assessee

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

section 143(3) of the Act. 16.9 On perusal of the ledgers of the laborers we note that the payment was made by the assessee periodically after the deduction of TDS. Thus, the assessee cannot be penalized if the laborers have raised the bills at the end of the accounting year. 16.10 We also note that the assessee

VIKAS CHANDRAKANTBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

138 taxmann.com 336 (Allahabad), held that where the Assessing Officer forms a reason to believe on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing that the assessee is a Vikas Chandrakantbhai Shah vs. ITO Asst. Year –2019-20 - 5– beneficiary of accommodation entries, issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act is justified. Accordingly, Ground Nos.1

WAVES TRADELINE PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

138 taxmann.com 64/286 Taxman 183/444 ITR\n1, issued a fresh notice on 27-08-2022 and in view of decision of Supreme\nCourt in case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com\n70/301 Taxman 238/469 ITR 46, reopening notice issued on 27-08-2022 was\ntime barred and, thus, original notice issued

M/S. BODAL CHEMICALS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68 and 69C are not applicable in such circumstances. Accordingly, the disallowance deserves to be deleted. 6.3 The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the letter of CBDT dated 26.09.2018 stating the trust never had approval during the relevant period and also relied on the reply of DSIR under RTI confirming the trust was never Bodal Chemicals

SHRI UMANG HIRALAL THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2150/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Dharmadev House, Income-Tax, Shyamal Cross Road, Satellite, Central Circle 1(1), Ahmedabad – 380015 Ahmedabad Pan : Aavpt 8621 R आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2548/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. 305, Sahajanand Plaza, Bhatta Income-Tax, Ch Ar Rasta, Paldi, Ahmedabad Central Circle 1(1), Pan : Aavpt 8621 R Ahmedabad अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" यथ" िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, Cit-Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

68 of Rs.4,67,78,466/- pertaining to unexplained capital and Rs.3,28,02,305/- pertaining to unexplained cash credits have been rightly deleted by the ld. CIT(A) after appreciating all evidences filed by the assessee. Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is, therefore, found to be devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. 7. Ground No.3 raised

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI UMANG H. THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2150/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Dharmadev House, Income-Tax, Shyamal Cross Road, Satellite, Central Circle 1(1), Ahmedabad – 380015 Ahmedabad Pan : Aavpt 8621 R आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2548/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. 305, Sahajanand Plaza, Bhatta Income-Tax, Ch Ar Rasta, Paldi, Ahmedabad Central Circle 1(1), Pan : Aavpt 8621 R Ahmedabad अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" यथ" िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, Cit-Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

68 of Rs.4,67,78,466/- pertaining to unexplained capital and Rs.3,28,02,305/- pertaining to unexplained cash credits have been rightly deleted by the ld. CIT(A) after appreciating all evidences filed by the assessee. Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is, therefore, found to be devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. 7. Ground No.3 raised

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

68/ 69A of the IT Act and no expenditure is allowable against such income as per provision 115BBE of the IT Act. (emphasis is supplied on para 8.31 of appellate order). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of receipts

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

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

68/ 69A of the IT Act and no expenditure is allowable against such income as per provision 115BBE of the IT Act. (emphasis is supplied on para 8.31 of appellate order). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of receipts