DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA vs. NEOTECH EDUCATION FOUNDATION, VADODARA

68 to 69D of the Act. As such, it is the onus of the revenue to bring out the necessary evidence to hold that the assessee has made investments in the impugned land which is unexplained under the provisions of section 69B of the Act. Likewise, the contents of the email having attachments of page 157 and 158 were

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. RAJESH MALLEABLES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A). 3.2. The assessee before the learned CIT (A) submitted that it has received fresh unsecured loan in the year under consideration amounting to Rs. 2,41,28,949/- only. The assessee further filed the details

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

NISHANT CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roynishant Construction Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Ltd., 801 – 802, Regency Circle – 3(1)(1), Plaza, Anand Nagar Road, Ahmedabad. Satellite, Ahmedabad – 380 015. [Pan No.Aaacn 3752 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) ..

section 68 of the Act, neither we encourage multiple innings to revenue authorities as the ratio laid down in the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rajesh Babubhai Damania-vs- CIT, reported in 122 Taxman 614(Guj) which was subsequently followed by the Hon’ble ITAT Bench, at Delhi in the case

DCIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ALPESHKUMAR C.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1908/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive In Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. Pan: Aeapp9489G

193 ITR 669 (Kar.) has observed that "In the absence of any prejudice to the revenue, and the basis of the tax under the Act being to levy tax, as far as possible, on the real income, the approach should he liberal in applying the procedural provisions of the Act. An appeal is but a continuation of the original proceeding

SHREE MALLIKARJUN TRAD INVEST PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

68,327/-. The return of income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, accepting the total income as returned income of the assessee. The case was selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish the details of shares purchased and sold during the year. The Assessing Officer

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

68 of the Act. The addition is required to be deleted. 4.1 In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition relying upon statement of Mr.Chirag Thakkar, ex employee and Bharat Padiya, ex director of Dishman Group and such statements are already disowned by Dishman Group

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

68 of the Act. The addition is required to be deleted. 4.1 In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition relying upon statement of Mr.Chirag Thakkar, ex employee and Bharat Padiya, ex director of Dishman Group and such statements are already disowned by Dishman Group

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

68 of the Act. The addition is required to be deleted. 4.1 In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition relying upon statement of Mr.Chirag Thakkar, ex employee and Bharat Padiya, ex director of Dishman Group and such statements are already disowned by Dishman Group

MUNIRABANU MOHAMMED SAFI SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

193/- under section 69A in the hands of the assessee, and the most critical thing to be examined in this regard is explanation of the assessee with respect to these credits. There is no, and there cannot be any, dispute on the fundamental legal position that the onus is on the assesses to prove 'bonafides' or 'genuineness

SHRI UMANG HIRALAL THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2150/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Dharmadev House, Income-Tax, Shyamal Cross Road, Satellite, Central Circle 1(1), Ahmedabad – 380015 Ahmedabad Pan : Aavpt 8621 R आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2548/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. 305, Sahajanand Plaza, Bhatta Income-Tax, Ch Ar Rasta, Paldi, Ahmedabad Central Circle 1(1), Pan : Aavpt 8621 R Ahmedabad अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" यथ" िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, Cit-Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

68 of Rs.4,67,78,466/- pertaining to unexplained capital and Rs.3,28,02,305/- pertaining to unexplained cash credits have been rightly deleted by the ld. CIT(A) after appreciating all evidences filed by the assessee. Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is, therefore, found to be devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. 7. Ground No.3 raised

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI UMANG H. THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2150/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Dharmadev House, Income-Tax, Shyamal Cross Road, Satellite, Central Circle 1(1), Ahmedabad – 380015 Ahmedabad Pan : Aavpt 8621 R आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2548/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. 305, Sahajanand Plaza, Bhatta Income-Tax, Ch Ar Rasta, Paldi, Ahmedabad Central Circle 1(1), Pan : Aavpt 8621 R Ahmedabad अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" यथ" िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, Cit-Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

68 of Rs.4,67,78,466/- pertaining to unexplained capital and Rs.3,28,02,305/- pertaining to unexplained cash credits have been rightly deleted by the ld. CIT(A) after appreciating all evidences filed by the assessee. Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is, therefore, found to be devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. 7. Ground No.3 raised

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

68 of the Act. The addition is required to be deleted.\n4.1 In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the\nLd. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition relying upon statement of\nMr.Chirag Thakkar, ex employee and Bharat Padiya, ex director of Dishman\nGroup and such statements are already disowned by Dishman Group

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1 NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 311/Ahd/2016 2010-11 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Circle-1(1)(1) Opp. Samtheshwar Ahmedabad. Mahadev Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacu2414K 2. 2176/Ahd/2016 2011-12 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Circle-1(1)(1) Opp. Samtheshwar Ahmedabad. Mahadev Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacu2414K 3. 2173/Ahd/2016 2011-12 D.C.I.T., Axis Bank Limited, Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 4. 165/Ahd/2017 2012-13 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., Ahmedabad. Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 5. 287/Ahd/2017 2012-13 D.C.I.T., Axis Bank Limited, Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 6-7 520 & 2013-14 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., 521/Ahd/2018 & Ahmedabad. Circle-1(1)(1) 2014-15 Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 8-9 604 & 605/ 2013-14 D.C.I.T., Axis Bank Limited, Ahd/2018 & Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. 2014-15 Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K

section 43D is a beneficial provision but the provision iS very clear when it states that " {a} in the case of a scheduled bank the income by way of interest in relation to such categories of bad and^dou^btful debts as may be prescribed having regard to the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India in relation

RACHNA DIPESH LADDHA,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(2) VADODARA GUJARAT, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 68 of the Act was justified. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 1,72,54,826/- was sustained and the ground was dismissed. 8. In Ground No. 3, the assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 3,57,75,000/- on account of unsecured loans. During remand proceedings, it was accepted that the unsecured loan

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

193 ITR 321 (SC) as well as the judgment ITA Nos.265, 805, 806 & 2344/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. VyaktiVikas Kendra India Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Parashuram Pottery Works Ltd- vs-ITO, reported in (1977) 106 ITR 1(SC). 7.7 As we find that according

THE ACIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

193 ITR 321 (SC) as well as the judgment ITA Nos.265, 805, 806 & 2344/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. VyaktiVikas Kendra India Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Parashuram Pottery Works Ltd- vs-ITO, reported in (1977) 106 ITR 1(SC). 7.7 As we find that according

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

193 ITR 321 (SC) as well as the judgment ITA Nos.265, 805, 806 & 2344/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. VyaktiVikas Kendra India Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Parashuram Pottery Works Ltd- vs-ITO, reported in (1977) 106 ITR 1(SC). 7.7 As we find that according