H K ISPAT PVT. LTD.,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

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 69C of the Act, treating it as unexplained expenditure. 10.3 On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO's finding that the suppliers were non-genuine but disagreed with the 100% disallowance. Relying on jurisdictional precedents, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to 6% of the purchase value, concluding that in cases where sales

IRM PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1590/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Irm Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Irm House, बनाम/ Of Income Tax, V/S. Off. C.G Raod, Circle 2(1)(1), Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380009. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaci3678M अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr-Dr

68 of the IT Act. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in levying interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D of the IT Act. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

168 taxmann.com 477. 9. Now coming to the applicability of first proviso to section 147 of the Act, the AO, in the reasons recorded, has tried to justify his exercise of jurisdiction to reopen the assessment after four years from the end of the assessment year under consideration by stating : “Although, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

168 taxmann.com 477. 9. Now coming to the applicability of first proviso to section 147 of the Act, the AO, in the reasons recorded, has tried to justify his exercise of jurisdiction to reopen the assessment after four years from the end of the assessment year under consideration by stating : “Although, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

168 taxmann.com 477. 9. Now coming to the applicability of first proviso to section 147 of the Act, the AO, in the reasons recorded, has tried to justify his exercise of jurisdiction to reopen the assessment after four years from the end of the assessment year under consideration by stating : “Although, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SOHAM COMMODITIES PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

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

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

68 of the Act. The above view is supported by the ratio laid down in the following decisions of various courts of law: I.T.A No. 1380 & 1381/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 4 DCIT Vs. Piyush Subodhbhai Jhaveri & Soham Commodities Pvt. Ltd. i) Rohini Builders vs. Dy. CIT (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) [SLP of Revenue dismissed

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. PIYUSH SUBODHBHAI JHAVERI, AHMEDABAD

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

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

68 of the Act. The above view is supported by the ratio laid down in the following decisions of various courts of law: I.T.A No. 1380 & 1381/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 4 DCIT Vs. Piyush Subodhbhai Jhaveri & Soham Commodities Pvt. Ltd. i) Rohini Builders vs. Dy. CIT (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) [SLP of Revenue dismissed

SHRI MUFIZ BURHAMUDDIN SIDDIQUI,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground No. 6 of the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68 of Rs. 23,50,000/-. 7. The appellant Craves liberty to add, amends, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal.” Ground No. 2:- Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act of Rs. 8,36,800/- 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby\nallowed

168\ntaxmann.com 477.\n9. Now coming to the applicability of first proviso to section 147 of the Act,\nthe AO, in the reasons recorded, has tried to justify his exercise of jurisdiction\nto reopen the assessment after four years from the end of the assessment year\nunder consideration by stating: “Although, during the course of assessment\nproceedings, the assessee

ITO MEHSANA WARD 5 KADI, KADI vs. THE GOZARIA PEOPLES CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, GOZARIA

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 Ito, Mehsana Ward-5 The Gozaria Peoples Co-Operative Kadi. Vs Credit Society Ltd. 2, Main Bazar At Gozariya Ta. Mehsana 383 825 Gujarat. Pan : Aaajt 1283 G (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri B.K. Patel, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Durga Dutt, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

68. Respectfully following the said decision and in the absence of any fresh evidence brought by the Revenue, we uphold the CIT(A)’s deletion. Ground (c) is dismissed. 16. Ground (d): Disallowance of Rs.70,000/- u/s 40A(7) 17. The AO disallowed Rs.70,000/- under section 40A(7) on the ground that it was not reported

PRAVINSINH BHAWANSINH VAGHELA,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

168/-. During the year, the assessee, along with six other co-owners, sold land situated at Survey No. 394 of TP Scheme No. 7, Village Sargasan, for a total consideration of ₹11,25,62,000/-, out of which the assessee’s share was ₹4,11,75,000/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section

CHINTAN NIKETAN BHANDARI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment years 2014-15

section 68 I.T(SS).A Nos. 495 to 500 & 1604/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 to 2017-18 Page No. 16 Chintan Niketan Bhandari Vs. DCIT was justified. However, in the case of Shree Sidhnath Enterprise [2016] 71 taxmann.com 55 (Gujarat), the Gujarat High Court held that where business of assessee was to receive cash and issue cheques in lieu

M/S. DHOLERA REALCON LLP,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

168/-. The entire assessment order passed by the assessing officer is hi-pitch assessment order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. The Ld. Assessing Authority (NFAC) has on facts and on law grievously erred in making addition of Rs.67,85,994/- u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act by applying provision of section 115BBE of the Income

RUDRA GLOBAL INFRA PRODUCTS LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68 Rudra Global Infra Products Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Year –2018-19 - 8– towards entire bogus purchases, since AO made addition only on basis of said information without carrying out any further inquiry as to genuineness of purchases made by assessee, additions on account of alleged bogus purchases was rightly restricted to 5 per cent. 13. In the case of Vijay

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 68/ 69 of the IT Act, 1961.In many cases, the depositors may be mere name-lenders. 4. Details of your assessee: ITA Nos.690 to 694/Ahd/2023 Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel vs. Assessing Officer Asst.Years– 2015-16 to 2017-18 Details as provided in the enclosed excel sheet contains Name (surname first) and PAN of the assessees along with their account

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 68/ 69 of the IT Act, 1961.In many cases, the depositors may be mere name-lenders. 4. Details of your assessee: ITA Nos.690 to 694/Ahd/2023 Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel vs. Assessing Officer Asst.Years– 2015-16 to 2017-18 Details as provided in the enclosed excel sheet contains Name (surname first) and PAN of the assessees along with their account

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 68/ 69 of the IT Act, 1961.In many cases, the depositors may be mere name-lenders. 4. Details of your assessee: ITA Nos.690 to 694/Ahd/2023 Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel vs. Assessing Officer Asst.Years– 2015-16 to 2017-18 Details as provided in the enclosed excel sheet contains Name (surname first) and PAN of the assessees along with their account

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 68/ 69 of the IT Act, 1961.In many cases, the depositors may be mere name-lenders. 4. Details of your assessee: ITA Nos.690 to 694/Ahd/2023 Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel vs. Assessing Officer Asst.Years– 2015-16 to 2017-18 Details as provided in the enclosed excel sheet contains Name (surname first) and PAN of the assessees along with their account