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 of the Act. As per amended provisions, the assessee IT(SS)A No. 73/Ahd/2025 and others Group Appeals - HK Ispat Pvt Ltd Asst.Year : 2015-16 to 2021-2022 - 8– needs to explain source to source of sum credited to his bank account, the appellant submitted that such amended provisions not applicable to current year, thus the appellant

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 did not apply to the advances received for alleged sale of land. 3 The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground, which may be necessary.” 3. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT-A erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for Rs. 33.92 crores

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 did not apply to the advances received for alleged sale of land. 3 The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground, which may be necessary.” 3. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT-A erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for Rs. 33.92 crores

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 did not apply to the advances received for alleged sale of land. 3 The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground, which may be necessary.” 3. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT-A erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for Rs. 33.92 crores

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 did not apply to the advances received for alleged sale of land. 3 The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground, which may be necessary.” 3. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT-A erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for Rs. 33.92 crores

SMT. MAYURI P. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 92/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Smt. Mayuri P. Patel, Income Tax Officer, Prof. Of Ar Chem Industries 15, Vs. Ward-1(3)(2), Neelkanth Society, Vadodara. B/H Sama Road, Vadodara-390002. Pan: Aqhpp7772K

68 of Rs. 16,39,960 was upheld. A.Y. 2012-13 8 4.7 The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bomin P. Ltd. Vs CIT 160 ITR 477 has ruled that section

PARTH DINESH PATEL,MEHSANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, PATAN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.137/Ahd/2024 & 138/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Parth Dinesh Patel The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 18/19, Utkarsh Society Ward-1, V/S. Opp. Market Yard Patan – 384 265 Tal. Visnagar, Mehsana Gujarat – 384 315 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bwrpp 7811 A (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhinal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 01.12.2023 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Arising Out Of Reassessment Orders Framed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], By The National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer /Ao”] For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2015–16 & 2016–17, Respectively. As The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common

section 68 of the Act aggregating to Rs.86,62,160/-, comprising Rs.32,50,000/- received from five specific parties

PARTH DINESH PATEL,MEHSANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, PATAN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 68 of the Act\naggregating to Rs.86,62,160/-, comprising Rs.32,50,000/- received from five\nspecific parties

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI RAMESH GOBARJI THAKOR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer Vs. Shri Ramesh Gobarji Thakor Ward-3 Sector 11 Gandhinagar. Gandhinagar. Pan : Aespt 3446 H (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/07/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. If on verification, it was bund that those lenders did not disclose in their income tax return the transaction or that they had not disclosed the aforesaid amount, the Assessing Officer could call for further explanation the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transaction or creditworthiness of the same. 12 However

OLYMPIC DECOR LLP,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Olympic Décor Llp Pr.Commissioner Of 6, Patel Avenue, Nr.Gurudwara Vs Income Tax-3 Sg Highway, Bodakdev Ambawadi Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan : Adafs 2113 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate & Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ars : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE in respect of loan from Crown Laminates Pvt. Ltd., Carry forward and set-off of unabsorbed depreciation on such iv. goodwill and Acceptance of set-off of losses of Rs.11,18,52,160

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. CRYSTAL CERAMIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively. Since the common issues are involved in all these appeals, the same are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. First we deal with

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. CRYSTAL CERAMIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively. Since the common issues are involved in all these appeals, the same are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. First we deal with

CRYSTAL CERAMICS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively. Since the common issues are involved in all these appeals, the same are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. First we deal with

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

THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. PARSOLI MOTOR WORKS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

68 of the Act. Penal proceedings under section 271(l)(c) of the Act are being initiated separately as the assessee inaccurate particulars of its income to the extent of Rs.4,10,00,000/-. (Addition of Rs.4,10,00,000/-)” From the above it appears that in Paragraph (ii), (v) & (vi) the Ld. AO has clarified such shortcomings which

NISHANT CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roynishant Construction Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Ltd., 801 – 802, Regency Circle – 3(1)(1), Plaza, Anand Nagar Road, Ahmedabad. Satellite, Ahmedabad – 380 015. [Pan No.Aaacn 3752 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) ..

section 68 of the Act, neither we encourage multiple innings to revenue authorities as the ratio laid down in the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rajesh Babubhai Damania-vs- CIT, reported in 122 Taxman 614(Guj) which was subsequently followed by the Hon’ble ITAT Bench, at Delhi in the case

SHRI ANIRUDHSINGH P. PADHIYAR,,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(2),, PETLAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

68 allowed and we direct assessing officer to delete the addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- . 5. Next ground relating to making disallowance on account of bogus salary expense of Rs. 6,38,000/- . 6. This salary was paid by the assessee in cash and in assessment order, assessing officer admitted that assessee is engaged in the business of trading

KISHORI PANKAJ AGARWAL,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , VADODARA, GUJARAT

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA (Accountant Member)

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2015-16. ITA No. 623/Ahd/2023 [Kishori Pankaj Agarwal vs. ITO] A.Y. 2015-16 - 2 – 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well