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

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

section 133A of the Act. These documents were marked as AS-2. These Documents were confronted to the director of the assessee company namely Shri Bhratbhai Shah, who has admitted to have made an investment in the construction of Rs. 41,60,76,489/- out of the unaccounted income. But the AO made addition of Rs. 68

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

section 133A of the Act. These documents were marked as AS-2. These Documents were confronted to the director of the assessee company namely Shri Bhratbhai Shah, who has admitted to have made an investment in the construction of Rs. 41,60,76,489/- out of the unaccounted income. But the AO made addition of Rs. 68

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

section 133A of the Act. These documents were marked as AS-2. These Documents were confronted to the director of the assessee company namely Shri Bhratbhai Shah, who has admitted to have made an investment in the construction of Rs. 41,60,76,489/- out of the unaccounted income. But the AO made addition of Rs. 68

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

section 133A of the Act. These documents were marked as AS-2. These Documents were confronted to the director of the assessee company namely Shri Bhratbhai Shah, who has admitted to have made an investment in the construction of Rs. 41,60,76,489/- out of the unaccounted income. But the AO made addition of Rs. 68

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

SHRI ARVINDBHAI POPATLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Memebr

183 per square meters as valued by the DVO whereas the learned CIT(A) confirmed the working of the capital gain of the AO with regard to sale of bungalow. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 7.1 The learned AR before us filed a paper book running from

M/S GREENWELL ORCHARDS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-3 , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

183 (Guj.) wherein held as follows: 17. Thus, the Commissioner of Income-tax is entitled to revise an assessment order insofar as the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, but Explanation (c) places an embargo on the Commissioner of Income-tax in case of subject- I.T.A No. 695/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2009-10 Page

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

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

SMT. RITABEN SAKETKUMAR TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

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

68, Chimanbhai Jivabhai 2(2), Vs Market,Vasna, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-382460. PAN: AASPT6796Q [Appellant] (Respondent) Assessee Represented : Shri Mehul K. PATEL, AR Revenue Represented : Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 04-07-2024 Date of pronouncement : 28-08-2024 आदेश/ORDER PER BENCH: These Appeals are filed by the Assessee and the Revenue as against separate appellate orders

SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. INDUMATIBEN RUGNATH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

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

68, Chimanbhai Jivabhai 2(2), Vs Market,Vasna, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-382460. PAN: AASPT6796Q [Appellant] (Respondent) Assessee Represented : Shri Mehul K. PATEL, AR Revenue Represented : Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 04-07-2024 Date of pronouncement : 28-08-2024 आदेश/ORDER PER BENCH: These Appeals are filed by the Assessee and the Revenue as against separate appellate orders

SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

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

68, Chimanbhai Jivabhai 2(2), Vs Market,Vasna, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-382460. PAN: AASPT6796Q [Appellant] (Respondent) Assessee Represented : Shri Mehul K. PATEL, AR Revenue Represented : Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 04-07-2024 Date of pronouncement : 28-08-2024 आदेश/ORDER PER BENCH: These Appeals are filed by the Assessee and the Revenue as against separate appellate orders

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SMT. RITABEN SAKETKUMAR TANNA, AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

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

68, Chimanbhai Jivabhai 2(2), Vs Market,Vasna, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-382460. PAN: AASPT6796Q [Appellant] (Respondent) Assessee Represented : Shri Mehul K. PATEL, AR Revenue Represented : Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 04-07-2024 Date of pronouncement : 28-08-2024 आदेश/ORDER PER BENCH: These Appeals are filed by the Assessee and the Revenue as against separate appellate orders

THE ITO WARD-5(3)(1) (PREVIOUSLY THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2)), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. INDUMATIBEN RUGNATH TANNA, AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

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

68, Chimanbhai Jivabhai 2(2), Vs Market,Vasna, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-382460. PAN: AASPT6796Q [Appellant] (Respondent) Assessee Represented : Shri Mehul K. PATEL, AR Revenue Represented : Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 04-07-2024 Date of pronouncement : 28-08-2024 आदेश/ORDER PER BENCH: These Appeals are filed by the Assessee and the Revenue as against separate appellate orders

SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

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

68, Chimanbhai Jivabhai 2(2), Vs Market,Vasna, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-382460. PAN: AASPT6796Q [Appellant] (Respondent) Assessee Represented : Shri Mehul K. PATEL, AR Revenue Represented : Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 04-07-2024 Date of pronouncement : 28-08-2024 आदेश/ORDER PER BENCH: These Appeals are filed by the Assessee and the Revenue as against separate appellate orders

INFINITY BUILDCOM,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABNAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also observed a substantial increase in sundry creditors, resulting in an unexplained difference of Rs.2,75,42,183

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B on 12.09.2022 and made the following additions: • Rs.15,14,46,954/- on account of unverified current liabilities u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE • Rs.40,00,000/- disallowed as personal expenditure • Rs.19,39,776/- added as unexplained increase in loans/advances u/s 68 • Rs.70,000/- disallowed u/s 40A(7) on account of gratuity provision • Rs.89,91,830/- disallowed