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 131 of the Act. Accordingly, no reference can be made to such statements. 71. We also note that the Ld. CIT-A has made the reference to the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dhansiram Aggarwal vs. CIT reported in 201 ITR 192 while confirming the order of the AO in part. However

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 131 of the Act. Accordingly, no reference can be made to such statements. 71. We also note that the Ld. CIT-A has made the reference to the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dhansiram Aggarwal vs. CIT reported in 201 ITR 192 while confirming the order of the AO in part. However

NARENDRA CHANDUBHAI RAFALIYA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(8), AHMEDABAD

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

68 of the Act. 7.5 The Cochin ITAT in the case of Thomas Eapen v ITO [2020] 113 taxmann.com 268 (Cochin - Trib.) held that where assessee, a small trader in medicine falling under section 44AD, offered income on presumptive taxation basis, provision of section 69A could not be applied to make addition in respect of undisclosed cash credits

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

SHAILESH K PATEL-HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 288/Ahd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) िनधा"रण वष" Shailesh K. Patel Huf The Income Tax Officer बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Ward – 3(3)(5), Vs. Advocate Ahmedabad 512, Time Square – I, Op. Ram Baug Bungalow, Thaltej Shilaj Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aalhs9548E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Ketan Shah & Shri Aman Shah, अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : A.Rs. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. Dr 04/06/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 18/06/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 24.01.2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 68 of the Act. The AO also held that the transaction of LTCG was a sham transaction only to bring its own unaccounted money in the guise of exempted LTCG and only paper work was done to give a color of authenticity to the transactions by creating a façade of legitimate transactions. ITA No. 288/Ahd/2019 (Shailesh K Patel

DCIT, AHMEDABAD vs. TRIPOLI MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.5/Ahd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Dcit Tripoli Management Pvt.Ltd. Ahmedabad बनाम/ 8-301, Safal Pegasis 100 Ft. Road V/S. Prahladnagar Ahmedabad- 380 015 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabct 0588 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ….. ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue As Against The Order Dated 19/10/2023 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 27/12/2018 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Dy.Cit Vs. Tripoli Management Pvt.Ltd. Asst. Year : 2016-17

192/- 11,17,82,000/- Furnishing Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Shanti 16,82,2291/- 7,19,05,2421- Educational Institute Ltd. M/s.Aastha 25,31,638/- 3,68,00,000/- Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. M/s.Gainwell 18,14,326/- 2,66,25,000/- Mercantiles Pvt. Ltd. Total 78,97,385/- 24,71,12,242/- 2.1. The AO further observed that these companies were declaring

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

192 (SC) in support of the proposition that if two view are possible, the view in favour of the assessee must be adopted. We don’t find any ambiguity in respect of the issue of reopening. The express provision of Explanation to section 149 of the Act, which in unequivocal terms stated that amended provision will have retrospective effect

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

192 (SC) in support of the proposition that if two view are possible, the view in favour of the assessee must be adopted. We don’t find any ambiguity in respect of the issue of reopening. The express provision of Explanation to section 149 of the Act, which in unequivocal terms stated that amended provision will have retrospective effect

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

192 (SC) in support of the proposition that if two view are possible, the view in favour of the assessee must be adopted. We don’t find any ambiguity in respect of the issue of reopening. The express provision of Explanation to section 149 of the Act, which in unequivocal terms stated that amended provision will have retrospective effect

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

192 (SC) in support of the proposition that if two view are possible, the view in favour of the assessee must be adopted. We don’t find any ambiguity in respect of the issue of reopening. The express provision of Explanation to section 149 of the Act, which in unequivocal terms stated that amended provision will have retrospective effect

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

192 (SC) in support of the proposition that if two view are possible, the view in favour of the assessee must be adopted. We don’t find any ambiguity in respect of the issue of reopening. The express provision of Explanation to section 149 of the Act, which in unequivocal terms stated that amended provision will have retrospective effect

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

192 (SC) in support of the proposition that if two view are possible, the view in favour of the assessee must be adopted. We don’t find any ambiguity in respect of the issue of reopening. The express provision of Explanation to section 149 of the Act, which in unequivocal terms stated that amended provision will have retrospective effect

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

192 (SC) in support of the proposition that if two view are possible, the view in favour of the assessee must be adopted. We don’t find any ambiguity in respect of the issue of reopening. The express provision of Explanation to section 149 of the Act, which in unequivocal terms stated that amended provision will have retrospective effect

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

192 (SC) in support of the proposition that if two view are possible, the view in favour of the assessee must be adopted. We don’t find any ambiguity in respect of the issue of reopening. The express provision of Explanation to section 149 of the Act, which in unequivocal terms stated that amended provision will have retrospective effect

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

192 (SC) in support of the proposition that if two view are possible, the view in favour of the assessee must be adopted. We don’t find any ambiguity in respect of the issue of reopening. The express provision of Explanation to section 149 of the Act, which in unequivocal terms stated that amended provision will have retrospective effect

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

192 (SC) in support of the proposition that if two view are possible, the view in favour of the assessee must be adopted. We don’t find any ambiguity in respect of the issue of reopening. The express provision of Explanation to section 149 of the Act, which in unequivocal terms stated that amended provision will have retrospective effect

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

192 (SC) in support of the proposition that if two view are possible, the view in favour of the assessee must be adopted. We don’t find any ambiguity in respect of the issue of reopening. The express provision of Explanation to section 149 of the Act, which in unequivocal terms stated that amended provision will have retrospective effect

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEHAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

192 (SC) in support of the proposition that if two view are possible, the view in favour of the assessee must be adopted. We don’t find any ambiguity in respect of the issue of reopening. The express provision of Explanation to section 149 of the Act, which in unequivocal terms stated that amended provision will have retrospective effect