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

M/S. ARIHANT JEWELS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

173/-. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee has also placed reliance on the decision of following judicial pronouncements M/s. Fashion World Vs. ACIT Vide ITA 1634/Ahd/2016 dated 12.02.2010 , DCIT vs. M/s. Shah Khodi Das vide ITA No. 531/Ahd/2008 dated 25.03.2011 and CIT-II vs. Shilpa Dyeing & Printing Mills P. Ltd. vide Tax Appeal No. 290 of 2013 dated

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

DR K R SHROFF FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\n\n29

68 of I.T. Act, 1961, is not sustainable....”\n\n11.\nThe Revenue has been unable to controvert the findings of Ld.\nCIT(A) regarding the source of funds utilised by Arrow for acquisition of\nshares of the assessee trust. The assessee had not only established the\ngenuneness of the transactions but also brought on record evidences to\nestablish the creditworthiness

NAVRANGPURA ORGANISERS & DEV. PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

68,49,830/-. A notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 1.11.2007 which was duly served upon the assessee. The ld.AO has observed that the assessee had received advance payment from two projects viz. Kalhar Project and Kings Square Project. He has worked out the total amount received by the assessee and how much work

NAVRATNA ORGANISERS & DEV. PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENT. CIRCLE 1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

68,49,830/-. A notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 1.11.2007 which was duly served upon the assessee. The ld.AO has observed that the assessee had received advance payment from two projects viz. Kalhar Project and Kings Square Project. He has worked out the total amount received by the assessee and how much work

D. J. STOCK BROKING PRIVATE LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri T.S. Kapoor

68 of the Act by treating the share application money received by the assessee as unexplained credit, and (b) the ld.CIT(A) has 2 erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.30,887/- under section 14A of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income on 30.9.2012 declaring total income

ACIT (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. DR K R SHROFF FOUNDATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\n\n29

68 of I.T. Act, 1961, is not sustainable....”\n\n11. The Revenue has been unable to controvert the findings of Ld.\nCIT(A) regarding the source of funds utilised by Arrow for acquisition of\nshares of the assessee trust. The assessee had not only established the\ngenuneness of the transactions but also brought on record evidences to\nestablish the creditworthiness

THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(4), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI NILESHKUMAR DASHRATHBHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

173/- and thereby earned long term capital gain of Rs. 1,04,55,043/- which was claimed as exempted under section 10(38) of the Act. 3.2 The assessee in support of genuineness of the long term capital gain, during the assessment proceedings, submitted that he came to know about investment opportunity in the company M/s Transcend

SANDEEP MOHANRAJ SINGHI,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE4(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

68 of I.T. Act, 1961, is not sustainable….” 11. The Revenue has been unable to controvert the findings of Ld. CIT(A) regarding the source of funds utilised by Arrow for acquisition of shares of the assessee trust. The assessee had not only established the genuineness of the transactions but also brought on record evidences to establish the creditworthiness

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

173 taxmann.com 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

DHARMANANDAN DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

173/-.\n\n4.\nThe Assessing Officer issued various notices of hearing to the assessee\nbut since there was no response to various notices issued under section 142(1)\nand the final show-cause notice under section 144 of the Act, the Assessing\nOfficer completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act based on\navailable records

AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,860/- to the total income of the assessee on a protective basis as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 6. Further, since the assessee had neither filed her return of income under section 139(1) within the prescribed time nor in response to notice under section 153C, penalty proceedings under section 271F were

AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,860/- to the total income of the assessee on a protective basis as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 6. Further, since the assessee had neither filed her return of income under section 139(1) within the prescribed time nor in response to notice under section 153C, penalty proceedings under section 271F were

AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,860/- to the total income of the assessee on a protective basis as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 6. Further, since the assessee had neither filed her return of income under section 139(1) within the prescribed time nor in response to notice under section 153C, penalty proceedings under section 271F were

AMISH MANUBHAI BRAHMBHATT ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 147 of the I.T. Act and such escaped income exceeded Rs.1,00,000/-. 3. In response, the assessee a return on 19.04.2019 declaring the very same total income of Rs.3,62,370/-. The assessee was issued a show cause notice on 28.11.2019 why not to make an addition of Rs.10,07,173/- on the transaction carried

PHARMANZA HERBAL PRIVATE LIMITED,DHARMAJ vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VADODARA-1, VAODARA

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

173 taxmann.com 144 (Ahmedabad - Trib.)/[2025] 212 ITD 178 (Ahmedabad - Trib.)[01-04-2025], the Assessee claimed deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act on account of in-house research and development expenditure. The Assessing Officer allowed said claim. Subsequently, Principal Commissioner invoked jurisdiction under section 263 on ground that deduction under section

THE TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 907/Ahd/2012 2007-08 M/S. Torrent Add. Cit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Range – 8, Torrent House, Off. Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aaact 5456 A 2. 938/Ahd/2012 2007-08 The Acit, M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. 3. 1634/Ahd/2012 2008-09 M/S. Torrent The Acit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad Ahmedabad. 4. 1725/Ahd/2012 2008-09 The Acit M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad.

section 80-IC of the Act. Both the parties before us relied on the order of authorities below as favorable to them. 45. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The controversy in the case on hand relates whether the donation paid by the assessee under section