ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

section 68-Held, yes [Para 5] [In favour of assessee)" (vi) Decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Pratapbhai Virjibhai Patel Vs. Income Tax Officer [2014] 45 taxmann.com 151

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. BHAVESHKUMAR GIRISHBHAI BHANDARI, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

Appeal is allowed in ITA 978/Ahd/2025 and ITA\n978/Ahd/2025 as well

section 68 of\nthe Act. In the absence of satisfactory explanation, the Assessing Officer is\njustified in treating the transactions as unexplained cash credits. Similarly, in\nPrincipal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Smt. Usha Devi Modi [2023] 151

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. AMBALIA HITESH CHHAGANLAL HUF, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

68 of the Act and taxed under ITA Nos. 1428 & 1429/Ahd /2024 ITO Vs. Ambalia Hitesh Chhaganlal HUF Asst. Year : 2016-17 & 2017-18 - 2– section 115BBE of the Act. The assessment was completed on 29.05.2023 under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) and 144B of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. AMBALIA HITESH CHHAGANLAL HUF, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

68 of the Act and taxed under ITA Nos. 1428 & 1429/Ahd /2024 ITO Vs. Ambalia Hitesh Chhaganlal HUF Asst. Year : 2016-17 & 2017-18 - 2– section 115BBE of the Act. The assessment was completed on 29.05.2023 under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) and 144B of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ASHRITA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is allowed

151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or belong to a person other than the person referred to section 153A, then the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned shall

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. BHAVESHKUMAR GIRISHBHAI BHANDARI, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed and the order of\nthe Assessing Officer is restored

section 68 of\nthe Act. In the absence of satisfactory explanation, the Assessing Officer is\njustified in treating the transactions as unexplained cash credits. Similarly, in\nPrincipal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Smt. Usha Devi Modi [2023] 151

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. GIRISHKUMAR AMRATLAL BHANDARI HUF, HIMATNAGAR, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed and the order of\nthe Assessing Officer is restored

section 68 of\nthe Act. In the absence of satisfactory explanation, the Assessing Officer is\njustified in treating the transactions as unexplained cash credits. Similarly, in\nPrincipal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Smt. Usha Devi Modi [2023] 151

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD , AHMEDABAD vs. SOLACE CAPITAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDBAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is also dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 68 was deleted, the CIT(A) deemed the adjudication of the additional grounds challenging the reopening as academic and did not decide on them separately. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before us with following grounds of appeal: (a) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts

GITABEN DINESHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

151 taxmann.com 119 (Calcutta), the Hon’ble High Court upheld the Revenue’s action in treating gains on sale of penny stock shares as unexplained income under section 68

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

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

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

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 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

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

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

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