DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. BHAVESHKUMAR GIRISHBHAI BHANDARI, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed and the order of\nthe Assessing Officer is restored

section 68 were accordingly upheld.\n10.\nThe principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumati\nDayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) that transactions must be tested on the\ntouchstone of human probability and surrounding circumstances rather than\non mere paper documentation, squarely applies to the present case. The\nCIT(Appeals) erred in deleting

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. GIRISHKUMAR AMRATLAL BHANDARI HUF, HIMATNAGAR, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed and the order of\nthe Assessing Officer is restored

section 68 were accordingly upheld.\n10. The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumati\nDayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) that transactions must be tested on the\ntouchstone of human probability and surrounding circumstances rather than\non mere paper documentation, squarely applies to the present case. The\nCIT(Appeals) erred in deleting

GITABEN DINESHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 68 where the assessee failed to establish Gitaben Dineshbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 9– the identity and creditworthiness of counterparties and could not substantiate the genuineness of steep price rise in shares of a company with no commercial worth. The ratio of this judgment squarely applies to the present case, as the assessee has completely failed

VEENITA ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

section 68 for share capital / premium received by assessee company. 27 The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Gayathri Associates [2014] 41 taxmann.com 526 (Andhra Pradesh) has held that Identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction is not established merely by filing bank account details. 28. The High Court of Allahabad in the case of Sagittraious Builders

M/S. SOFTTOUCH COSMETIC (MKTG.) PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(2),, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 68 for share capital / premium received by assessee company. 6.4 The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Gayathri Associates [2014] 41 taxmann.com 526 (Andhra Pradesh) has held that Identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction is not established merely by filing bank account details. 6.5 The High Court of Allahabad in the case of Sagittraious Builders

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

ZARINABEN RAHIMBHAI KALAVATAR,MAHUVA vs. ACIT, WARD-2(4), BHAVNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

198/- showing in the current year under scrutiny. The return for Assessment Year 2013-14 & 2014-15 were not filed. The due date for filing returns was 31.07.2015 but the return for the Assessment Year 2015-16 was also filed after due date i.e. on 27.03.2017 (post demonetization). The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.4,41,845/- under Section

HARESHGIRI PRATAPGIRI GAUSHVAMI,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), BHAVNAGAR

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

section 68 for share capital / premium received by assessee company. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Gayathri 7.4 Associates [2014] 41 taxmann.com 526 (Andhra Pradesh) has held that Identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction is not established merely by filing bank account details. 7.5 The High Court of Allahabad in the case of Sagittraious Builders

IRM PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1590/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Irm Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Irm House, बनाम/ Of Income Tax, V/S. Off. C.G Raod, Circle 2(1)(1), Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380009. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaci3678M अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr-Dr

section 68 of the Act, the same pertains to cash deposits routed through the bank account of one Shri Hemant Srivastava, an employee of Green Channel Travel Services Ltd., into the account of the company. The Department alleged that these were unaccounted receipts. The assessee, however, submitted that the said sum represented collections from customers against foreign exchange

PRAKASH GOVINDBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

68 for share capital / premium received by assessee company. 8. In the case of Krishan Kumar v ITO 107 taxmann.com 464 (SC), the Assessee filed return showing gross receipts of Rs. 9 lakhs. During the relevant year, assessee made cash deposits of more than 37 lakhs in saving bank account. The Assessee's explained source of cash deposits by taking

PRAKASH GOVINDBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

68 for share capital / premium received by assessee company. 8. In the case of Krishan Kumar v ITO 107 taxmann.com 464 (SC), the Assessee filed return showing gross receipts of Rs. 9 lakhs. During the relevant year, assessee made cash deposits of more than 37 lakhs in saving bank account. The Assessee's explained source of cash deposits by taking

PRAKASH GOVINDBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

68 for share capital / premium received by assessee company. 8. In the case of Krishan Kumar v ITO 107 taxmann.com 464 (SC), the Assessee filed return showing gross receipts of Rs. 9 lakhs. During the relevant year, assessee made cash deposits of more than 37 lakhs in saving bank account. The Assessee's explained source of cash deposits by taking

MR. CHETANKUMAR RATILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.905/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2014-2015 Shri Chetankumar Ratilal Shah, Income Tax Officer, 6, Pratik Appartments, Vs. Ward-5(1)(1), Nr. Shipalaya Char Rasta, Ahmedabad. Vasna, Ahmedabad-380007. Pan: Aqnps3125R

section 68 of the Act there could not have been made. However, as noted, the Tribunal has minutely examined the position of the lenders, the circumstances under which, the amounts were allegedly loaned to come to the conclusion that the "transactions were not genuine," The Hon'ble apex court on 01.5.2018 also dismissed the SLP filed against the order

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. RADHIKA JEWELLERS, VADODARA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Acit Radhika Jewellers Circle-1(1)(1) Vs 14/16, Indrapuri Complex Vadodara New Sama Road, Sama Vadodara – 380 006 (Gujarat) Pan: Aahfr 2958 M अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parma, Ar Revenue By : Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

section 68 of the Act. 2. Balwinder Kumar vs. ITO, (2023) 151 taxmann.com 338 (Amritsar). The Tribunal emphasized that additions cannot be made based on mere assumptions and presumptions without substantive evidence. 3. R. S. Diamonds India P. Ltd. vs. ACIT, (2022) 198

INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SURESHKUMAR BHIKALAL THAKKER, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed

section 68 where the assessee failed to establish\nthe identity and creditworthiness of counterparties and could not substantiate\nthe genuineness of steep price rise in shares of a company with no commercial\nworth. The ratio of this judgment squarely applies to the present case, as the\nassessee has completely failed to demonstrate the bona fides of the impugned\ntransactions

DCIT CC- 1(3), AAYKAR BHAWAN vs. MONTECARLO LIMITED, MONTECARLO HOUSE, SINDHU BHAWA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA

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

198/-, claimed as deduction u/s.801A(4) for the year, including the deduction of Rs.1,55,09,903/-, claimed on profits of JVs, as a constituent, as claimed in return of income. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is treated as ALLOWED." 15.3 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Backbone Projects Ltd. dismissed the SLP filed by Revenue

DCIT CC- 1(3), AAYKAR BHAVAN vs. MONTECARLO LIMITED , SINDHU BHAWAN ROAD, BODAKDEV

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA

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

198/-, claimed as deduction u/s.801A(4) for the year, including the deduction of Rs.1,55,09,903/-, claimed on profits of JVs, as a constituent, as claimed in return of income. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is treated as ALLOWED." 15.3 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Backbone Projects Ltd. dismissed the SLP filed by Revenue

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

198/- only. Accordingly, the AO made the disallowance of the balance amount of Rs. 26,19,72,629/- and added to the total income of the assessee. 4. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld.CIT(A), who found that his predecessor in the own case of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2008- 09 has also made