DHARAMTAR MOTORS SERVICES PETROLEUM PRODUCT,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the results, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1438 & 2534/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S Dharamtar Motor Services Income Tax Officer, Petroleum Product, Vs. Ward 6(1)(4) C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Advocate 903, Ahmedabad. Sapphire Complex, C.G. Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aabfd9182F

68 - On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) deleted addition on ground that said cash credit was appearing in books of assessee over past four to five years and, thus, it was not fresh credit entry pertaining to relevant assessment year - Tribunal dismissed appeal filed by revenue - Whether finding recorded by Commissioner (Appeals) was a finding of fact and, as such, no fault

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

68,93,96,668/- made by the AO on account of unexplained expenditure vide paragraph Nos. 65 to 72 of this order. Thus, we are of the view that such addition of Rs. 6,75,66,545/- gets revived in the given facts and circumstances. Accordingly, it becomes necessary to adjudicate the issue on hand with respect to the addition

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/- made by the AO on account of unexplained expenditure vide paragraph Nos. 65 to 72 of this order. Thus, we are of the view that such addition of Rs. 6,75,66,545/- gets revived in the given facts and circumstances. Accordingly, it becomes necessary to adjudicate the issue on hand with respect to the addition

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

68,93,96,668/- made by the AO on account of unexplained expenditure vide paragraph Nos. 65 to 72 of this order. Thus, we are of the view that such addition of Rs. 6,75,66,545/- gets revived in the given facts and circumstances. Accordingly, it becomes necessary to adjudicate the issue on hand with respect to the addition

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/- made by the AO on account of unexplained expenditure vide paragraph Nos. 65 to 72 of this order. Thus, we are of the view that such addition of Rs. 6,75,66,545/- gets revived in the given facts and circumstances. Accordingly, it becomes necessary to adjudicate the issue on hand with respect to the addition

MANISH DEVENDRAKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in full

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.918/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Manish Devendrakumar Shah The Ito बनाम/ 206, 2Nd Floor, Kalash 1 Ward-5(3)(1) V/S. Navrangpura Ahmedabad Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aqjps 4226 K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divatia, Ar & Shri Samir Vora, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20 /02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) in respect of Long-Term Capital Gains ("LTCG") on the sale of shares of Looks Health Services Ltd. (LHSL). The Manish Devendrakumar Shah vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2014-15 2 appeal also challenges the reopening of the assessment under section

JAP AGRO FOODS PVT.LTD.,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(4),, BARODA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 191/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 M/S Jap Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O, Block No.295, Vs. Ward-1(4), Ranu Tal. Padra, Baroda. Vadodara.

section 68 of the Act. From the preceding discussion, we note that there is no ambiguity about the identity and the genuineness of the transaction as the assessee has filed the copy of the income tax return and the transaction was carried out through the banking channel. The dispute relates only with the creditworthiness of the party. In this

ITO WARD-4(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. VALLEY COMTRADE PVT LTD ( EARLIER KNOWN AS JHAWAR COMTRADE PVT. LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddharatha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2034/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 I.T.O, M/S. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., Ward-4(1)(4), Vs. (Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Ahmedabad. Pvt. Ltd.,) C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli Bmw Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aadcs3553N & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 68/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 M/S. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O, (Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Vs. Ward-1(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd.,) Surat. C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli Bmw Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aadcs3553N

68 of the Act by furnishing the necessary details about the source of share capital and premium received from above mentioned 5 investor companies. 13. Coming to the companies namely M/s. Pearl Tracom Pvt. Ltd., M/s 13.1 With respect to above 3 companies the DDIT in commission report under section 131(1)(d) has submitted that one company namely

ACIT, CIRCLE-3(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KRAFT LAMINATE, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Years : 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Kraft Laminate, Income-Tax, Vs C/O. Laxmi Timber, Nr. Circle 3(2), Ahmedabad Mahalaxmi Textile Mill, Opp. Rajbai Patel Timber Market, Narol Naroda Highway, Narol, Ahmedabad-382405 Pan : Aamfk 8120 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-:

68 of the Act. Ground No.2 of the Revenue’s appeal is accordingly dismissed. 11. The issue raised in Ground No.3 relates to the deletion by the learned CIT(A) of the addition of Rs.4,72,176/- made by the Assessing Officer by way of disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Act. 12. During the course of assessment

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

sections": ["14A", "8D", "115JB", "36(1)(iii)", "68", "37(1)", "80GGB", "32", "143(3)", "139(1)", "142(1)", "271(1)(c)", "274"], "issues

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(4), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI. SURESHCHANDRA SHANTILAL BRAHMBHATT, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Shri. Sureshchandra Shantilal Ward-1(2)(4), Ahmedabad, Brahmbhatt, Room No. 220, V. 4 Shreenath Bangalow Part-2 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. Matrushree Party Plot, Near Sachin Tower, Vejalpur, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad-380005 Ahmedabad-380051, Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Actpb8904H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Tushar Hemani, Sr. Ar & Sh. Parimalsinh Parmar, Ar Revenue By: Sh. Prasad Rao Waghe Annasaheb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.04.2024

68 of the I.T. Act by not considering the facts mentioned by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. 2. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed return of income

ANISH RAJNIKANT SHAH,AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

Section 68 could not have been invoked by the AO to make additions to the income of the assessee w.r.t. cash deposit of Rs. 21,51,200/- made by the assessee in his bank account maintained with IDBI Bank. The ld. counsel for the assesssee relied upon the following decisions : a) ITAT , Gauhati in the case of Smt. Madhu

ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MS GOODFARM REARING, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as\n“the Act”] vide order dated 17.05.2021 passed under section 143(3) read with\nsection 144B of the Act.\nFacts of the Case:\n2.\nThe assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of\ncattle/poultry/aqua/livestock and dairy farms. It was constituted on\n31.10.2017 with two partners namely

SHAUNAK SHAILESH SHAH ,9, NEELKANTH BUNGLOW, PRAHLADNAGAR, SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 15(4),, 7TH FLOOR, NATURE VIEW BUILDING, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD 380009

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1421/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Shaunak Shailesh Shah, I.T.O., 9, Neelkanth Bunglow, Vs. Ward-15(4), Prahladnagar, Ahmedabad. Satellite, Ahmedabad.

142(1) of the Act nor appeared before the AO in response to the notice issued under section 131 of the Act. The AO further collected the details of the parties to whom the assessee issued cheques from the bank by issuing notice under section 133(6) of the Act. After that the AO issued notice under section

RANDHEJA DUDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3 NOW WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt. Year : 2017-18 Randheja Dudh Utpadak The Ito, Ward-3 Sahakari Mandli Ltd. Vs Now Ward-1 To-Randheja Gandhinagar. Tal: Gandhinagar Pin : 382 620 Pan : Aacar 5164 K (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short Referred To As Ld.Cit(A)] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 22.11.2021 Pertaining To Asst.Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Notified That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By Limitation By 581 Days. In Order To Explain The Reasons For The Impugned Delay, The Ld.Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Cit(A)/Nfac Order Was Passed Against The Assessee On 22.11.2021. However, Due To Covid-19 Pandemic Limitation For Filing Appeal Before The Court Of Law Was Extended Till February, 2022. Therefore, After Expiry Of The Limitation For Filing Of The Appeal On Feb., 2022, The Assessee Was Required To File Appeal Within 60 Days Of The Same I.E. By April, 2022. But The Assessee Could File The Appeal On

68 taxmann.com 298 (Ker), wherein he pointed out that the Hon’ble Court held that the claims for deduction made in the return filed beyond the period stipulated under section 139(1) or 139(4) and made in returns filed u/s 142

RAJESH BALVANTRAI BRAHMBHATT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT(CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], dated 31.03.2025, for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. By the impugned orders, the learned PCIT held that the assessments framed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s. 153C of the Act (except A.Y. 2020-21 where proceedings were

RAJESH BALVANTRAI BRAHMBHATT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT(CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], dated 31.03.2025, for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. By the impugned orders, the learned PCIT held that the assessments framed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s. 153C of the Act (except A.Y. 2020-21 where proceedings were

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