DUSHYANTSINH YADVENDRASINH CHUDASAMA,VADODARA vs. DY.COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.353/Ahd/2022 & 354/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively Dushyantsinh Yadvendrasinh The Dy.Commissioner Of बनाम/ Chudasama Income Tax V/S. C/O.Anil R. Shah (Ca), Circle -1 (2) Shreeji House, 4Th Floor Vadodara – 390 007 B/H. M.J. Library Ahmedabad - 380 006 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acrpc 1888 M (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Kinjal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

194A of the Act, disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was held to be mandatory. The argument that similar interest payments had been allowed in earlier years was also not accepted, as each assessment year is to be considered independently. In view of the above, the interest expenses were disallowed, and an addition of Rs.8

ITO MEHSANA WARD 5 KADI, KADI vs. THE GOZARIA PEOPLES CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, GOZARIA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumari.Ta. No.1819/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. The Gozaria Peoples Co- Mehsana Ward 5, Operative Credit Society Kadi. Limited, Gozaria 2, Main Bazar At Gozaria Ta. Mehsana Dist. Mehsana-383825 [Pan No.Aaajt1283G] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri B K Patel, Ar Respondent By: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. Dr

68 of IT Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not furnished supporting evidences/documents to substantiated the increase in loans and advances? (c) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in admitting the additional evidences filed by assessee without remand back to AO for verification and ignoring the fact the assessee has not filed

F.M.AMIN CO(DASHRATH),DASHRATH vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

68 OF INCOME TAX ACT MADE BY LEARNED A.O. WHICH WERE RECEIVED FROM THREE DEPOSITORS WITH SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCES. THIS ADDITION NEEDS TO BE DELETED. 2) THE LEARNED A.O. TAXED THE ABOVE AMOUNT U/S 115BBE OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND LEVIED TAX AT 60 PERCENTAGE OF THE AMOUNT ADDED. THIS BEING GENUINE TRANSACTION THE APPLICATION OF THIS SECTION

M/S. BAJAJ FOODS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

68,63,587/- 8. The disallowance was made by the A.O. noting that the assessee had borrowed interest bearing funds by way of secured loans to the extent of Rs. 217.23 lacs and I.T.A No. 1647/Ahd/2012 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No 3 M/s. Bajaj Foods Ltd, vs. ITO paid interest thereon amounting to Rs. 25,97,905/-. The A.O. also

HETIKA MAYANKKUMAR PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Justice(Retd.) C V Bhadang & Dr.Brr Kumar

68,937/- as shown in return. 4. The assessee submitted that the AO has made addition of Rs.43,76,770/- on account of the mismatch between the income as per return and the amount as per form-26AS. The assessee had furnished the clarification with regard to the discrepancy and reconciled the difference. It was pointed out that the interest

SHREE HARI ENTERPRISE ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the\nfollowing terms:\n\ni) Issue No

sections": [ "263", "143(3)", "142(1)", "194-I", "194J", "40(a)(ia)", "68", "194A" ], "issues": "Whether the Pr.CIT was justified

ISPATAM METALS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WAD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result all the grounds raised on merits of the addition made are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2018-19

section 68 of the Act. We agree with the ld. Assessing Officer that 14 I.T.A No. 292/Ahd/2025 Ispatam Metals, A.Y. 2018-19 the assessee has miserably failed to discharge its onus not only of proving the genuineness of the transaction but also establishing the fact that when the unsecured loans were received. In the light of the same