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

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

172 taxmann.com 430\n(Ahmedabad - Trib.), wherein on identical facts it was held that the so-called\ngains from penny stock scrips were not genuine but represented unaccounted\nmoney in the guise of exempt capital gains, and additions made by the\nAssessing Officer under section 68 were accordingly upheld.\n10. The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

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

4) and 131 of the Act from key persons such\nas Shri Ashish Panalal Shah, Shri Shaileshbhai Jayantilal Shah, and Shri\nNarendrabhai Shivbhai Parmar which revealed that the demat accounts\nused for share trading were not genuinely owned or operated by these\nindividuals, but were instead controlled by Ashish Panalal Shah, who\nadmitted to manipulating share prices and providing bogus

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

4) and 131 of the Act from key persons such\nas Shri Ashish Panalal Shah, Shri Shaileshbhai Jayantilal Shah, and Shri\nNarendrabhai Shivbhai Parmar which revealed that the demat accounts\nused for share trading were not genuinely owned or operated by these\nindividuals, but were instead controlled by Ashish Panalal Shah, who\nadmitted to manipulating share prices and providing bogus

SHAILESHKUMAR DAHYABHAI PATEL,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(2) (NOW DCIT CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, GUJARAT, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, Ground Number 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

4– failed to establish their creditworthiness. The Assessing Officer observed that several lenders had filed meagre return of income, had insufficient bank balances and the funds were routed through their bank accounts shortly before being advanced to the assessee. In certain cases, interest was not actually paid but merely capitalised by the assessee. On these facts, the Assessing Officer held

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

4– related to the assessee. The assessee also drew attention to a decision in a comparable case of her close relative, Pranav Mahendrabhai Patel v. NFAC, Delhi (ITA No. 10118737/A.Y. 2017-18, dated 12.12.2023), wherein under identical facts and circumstances, the addition made under section 68 in respect of sale of shares of Kushal Tradelink Ltd. had been deleted

NAMRATA ALPIT PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(2), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 606-607/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: (2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Namrata Alpit Patel, Income Tax Officer, 110-, Yoginagar Township, Opp. Vs. Ward-1(3)(2), Prabhuta Marriage Hall, Chhani Vadodara. Baroda-391740

172/- made under section 68 of the Act. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual

NAMRATA ALPIT PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(2), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 606-607/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: (2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Namrata Alpit Patel, Income Tax Officer, 110-, Yoginagar Township, Opp. Vs. Ward-1(3)(2), Prabhuta Marriage Hall, Chhani Vadodara. Baroda-391740

172/- made under section 68 of the Act. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual

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

TORRENT POWER LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 80-IA of the Act. 69. The learned CIT (A) disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing that the impugned income does not have nexus with the distribution of power activity of the assessee. Thus the learned CIT (A) upheld the finding of the AO. 70. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned

THE JCIT (OSD), CIRELCE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. MIEZA SCHOOL PVT. LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS ARIHANT ARCADE PVT. LTD), SURAT

In the result, ground number 2 of the Revenue’s appeal is hereby dismissed

4 JCIT(OSD) vs. Mieza School Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as Arihant Arcade Pvt. Ltd.) the above submissions Ld. CIT(Appeals) allowed the assessee’s appeal with the following observations: “4.5 Appellant has taken a loan of Rs.5,29,28,517/- from M/s. Sandesh Procon LLP. The appellant has submitted copy of loan agreement, bank statement and audited balance sheet

M/S. 9TH STREET ARCHITECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

172 (Madras), wherein it was held that mere declaration of unaccounted receipts as commission or business income without satisfactory explanation of the source would attract section 69A and the special rate of tax under section 115BBE. The CIT(A) also placed reliance on Manoj Aggarwal v. DCIT (2008) 27 CCH 0557 (Del) (SB); 11 DTR 1 (Del), where

SHRI DHANESH P.SONI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act contemplates that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof, or the explanation offered by the assessee is not, in the opinion of the AO satisfactory, then the sum so credited

MASTEK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANG4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Appeal(S) By Asset. Nos Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1188/Ahd/2015 2009-10 M/S Mastek Ltd., D.C.I.T., (Osd)-1,Circle-4, 804/805Ahmedabad House, Opp. C.N. Vidyalaya, Nr. Ambawadi Circle, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad -380 006 Pan:Aaacm9908Q 2. 1852/Ahd/2015 2009-10 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 3. It(Tp) 172/Ahd/2016 2010-11 M/S. Mastek Ltd. J.C.I.T., Ahmedabad Range-4, Ahmedabad 4. It(Tp) 514/Ahd/2016 2010-11 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Assessee By : Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Murari, Cit- D.R.

172 & 514/Ahd/16 A.Y.s 2009-10 & 2010-11 35 Tax Convention. This article provides that when conditions are made or imposed between two associated enterprises in their commercial or financial relations which differ from those which would be made between independent enterprises then any profit which would, but for those conditions, have accrued to one of the enterprises, but, by reason

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. MASTEK LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Appeal(S) By Asset. Nos Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1188/Ahd/2015 2009-10 M/S Mastek Ltd., D.C.I.T., (Osd)-1,Circle-4, 804/805Ahmedabad House, Opp. C.N. Vidyalaya, Nr. Ambawadi Circle, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad -380 006 Pan:Aaacm9908Q 2. 1852/Ahd/2015 2009-10 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 3. It(Tp) 172/Ahd/2016 2010-11 M/S. Mastek Ltd. J.C.I.T., Ahmedabad Range-4, Ahmedabad 4. It(Tp) 514/Ahd/2016 2010-11 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Assessee By : Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Murari, Cit- D.R.

172 & 514/Ahd/16 A.Y.s 2009-10 & 2010-11 35 Tax Convention. This article provides that when conditions are made or imposed between two associated enterprises in their commercial or financial relations which differ from those which would be made between independent enterprises then any profit which would, but for those conditions, have accrued to one of the enterprises, but, by reason

MASTEK LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, (OSD) - 1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Appeal(S) By Asset. Nos Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1188/Ahd/2015 2009-10 M/S Mastek Ltd., D.C.I.T., (Osd)-1,Circle-4, 804/805Ahmedabad House, Opp. C.N. Vidyalaya, Nr. Ambawadi Circle, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad -380 006 Pan:Aaacm9908Q 2. 1852/Ahd/2015 2009-10 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 3. It(Tp) 172/Ahd/2016 2010-11 M/S. Mastek Ltd. J.C.I.T., Ahmedabad Range-4, Ahmedabad 4. It(Tp) 514/Ahd/2016 2010-11 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Assessee By : Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Murari, Cit- D.R.

172 & 514/Ahd/16 A.Y.s 2009-10 & 2010-11 35 Tax Convention. This article provides that when conditions are made or imposed between two associated enterprises in their commercial or financial relations which differ from those which would be made between independent enterprises then any profit which would, but for those conditions, have accrued to one of the enterprises, but, by reason

THE JT. CIT, RANGE-4, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. MASTEK LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Appeal(S) By Asset. Nos Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1188/Ahd/2015 2009-10 M/S Mastek Ltd., D.C.I.T., (Osd)-1,Circle-4, 804/805Ahmedabad House, Opp. C.N. Vidyalaya, Nr. Ambawadi Circle, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad -380 006 Pan:Aaacm9908Q 2. 1852/Ahd/2015 2009-10 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 3. It(Tp) 172/Ahd/2016 2010-11 M/S. Mastek Ltd. J.C.I.T., Ahmedabad Range-4, Ahmedabad 4. It(Tp) 514/Ahd/2016 2010-11 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Assessee By : Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Murari, Cit- D.R.

172 & 514/Ahd/16 A.Y.s 2009-10 & 2010-11 35 Tax Convention. This article provides that when conditions are made or imposed between two associated enterprises in their commercial or financial relations which differ from those which would be made between independent enterprises then any profit which would, but for those conditions, have accrued to one of the enterprises, but, by reason

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-5(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. BOMBAY SALES CORPORATION,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms Madhumita Royअपील सं./Ita No.632/Ahd/2016 &"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2011-2012

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961( in short the “ the Act’’) for the Assessment Year 2011-12 whereby and whereunder the “Ld.CIT(A)” has deleted the addition of Rs.2,68,30,874/- made on account of estimation of net profit on the ground that the assessee has not prepared a proper trading, profit and loss account