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

3,00,000 A statement giving explanation on source of loan is attached herewith vide Paper Book Page no.214 IT(SS)A No. 73/Ahd/2025 and others Group Appeals - HK Ispat Pvt Ltd Asst.Year : 2015-16 to 2021-2022 - 10– Confirmation of account is attached vide Paper Book Page 211 Copy of ITR of Lender is attached vide Paper Book Page

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

20. We have further considered the judgment passed by the ITAT, Mumbai Benches in the case of M/s. Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, wherein the similar issue cropped up, were settled in favour of the assessee following the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. (supra

SANDEEP MOHANRAJ SINGHI,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE4(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

section u/s 68 of the Act in respect of proceeds ITA Nos.1205 & 769/Ahd/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 ACIT(E) vs. Dr. KR Shroff Foundation Page 7 of 24 received by the assessee in respect of sale of shares is not found correct. There is no dispute to the fact that a sum of Rs.538.40 Crores was received

EAGLE STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P. K. Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

68,187/- to Appu Logistic and Shree Enterprises. It is further seen that the said payments made by assessee without deducting tax at source u/s 194C of the Act. Therefore, assessee was asked to explain as to why provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the I T Act should not be invoked in light of non compliance

THE DCIT.CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE SANAND TEXTILE INDS.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.995/Ahd/2014 With Co No.167/Ahd/2014 (In Ita No.1166/Ahd/2014) ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 1995-96) Shree Sanand Textiles The Dy.Cit (Osd) बनाम/ Industries Ltd. Circle-8 Vs. 10-A, Sattar Taluka Society Ahmedabad B/H. C.U. Shah College Navjivan Press Road Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamc 8881 G (Appellant & Cross Objector) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1166/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 1995-96) The Dcit Shree Sanand Textile बनाम/ Circle-8 Industries Ltd., Vs. Ahmedabad Ahmedabad .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anil R.Shah, Shri Tushar Hemani & Ms.Kinjal Shah, Ars Revenue By : Shri Vidhut Trivedi, Sr.Dr

68 cannot be applied in relation to the sales receipt shown by the assessee in its books of accounts. It is because the sales receipt has already been shown in the books of accounts as income at the time of sale only. 9.7. We are also aware of the fact that there is no iota of evidence having any adverse

SHREE SANAND TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, (OSD), CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.995/Ahd/2014 With Co No.167/Ahd/2014 (In Ita No.1166/Ahd/2014) ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 1995-96) Shree Sanand Textiles The Dy.Cit (Osd) बनाम/ Industries Ltd. Circle-8 Vs. 10-A, Sattar Taluka Society Ahmedabad B/H. C.U. Shah College Navjivan Press Road Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamc 8881 G (Appellant & Cross Objector) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1166/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 1995-96) The Dcit Shree Sanand Textile बनाम/ Circle-8 Industries Ltd., Vs. Ahmedabad Ahmedabad .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anil R.Shah, Shri Tushar Hemani & Ms.Kinjal Shah, Ars Revenue By : Shri Vidhut Trivedi, Sr.Dr

68 cannot be applied in relation to the sales receipt shown by the assessee in its books of accounts. It is because the sales receipt has already been shown in the books of accounts as income at the time of sale only. 9.7. We are also aware of the fact that there is no iota of evidence having any adverse

ITO WARD-4(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. VALLEY COMTRADE PVT LTD ( EARLIER KNOWN AS JHAWAR COMTRADE PVT. LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddharatha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2034/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 I.T.O, M/S. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., Ward-4(1)(4), Vs. (Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Ahmedabad. Pvt. Ltd.,) C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli Bmw Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aadcs3553N & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 68/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 M/S. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O, (Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Vs. Ward-1(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd.,) Surat. C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli Bmw Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aadcs3553N

20 - Copy of ITR-V and assessment order under section 143(3) - Copy of audited financial statements - Copy NBFC Registration certificate, PAN, MOA, AOA and Board Resolution - Copy of notarized affidavit. 12.10 Further, the notice issued by the AO under section 133(6) was also duly replied by M/s Divya Secfin Pvt Ltd along with requisite details. Accordingly

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA -HUF, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 795/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.169/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., Dharmenbhai M. Sutaria, Huf Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aafhd1653K

68 of the Act of Rs. 1,69,20,000/-. With C.O.No.169/Ahd/2019 Asstt. Year 2010-11 3 4. Your Respondent craves right to add, amend, alter, modify, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of cross objection. 3. The assessee in the CO has challenged the virus of the notice issued under section

HARISHKUMAR KHUSHALRAY BHATT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(2) NOW WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Harishkumar Khushalray Bhatt Ito, Ward-3(3)(2) P/1, Chandragupta Apartment Vs. Ahmedabad. Nr. Gordhandas Patel Hospital Vastrapur Ahmedabad. Pan : Abspb 3786 F (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Pritesh L. Shah, Ar : Shri Uday Kishanrao Kakne, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

3. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition made by AO of Rs.3,24,382/- in respect of Unsecured Loan Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, such addition is requested to be deleted. 5 9. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee made

THE DCIT-CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE SIDDHI INFRABUILD PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V. Mahadeokar

3 Date of 31.03.2017 30.03.2017 30.03.2017 Issuance of notice u/s 148 4 Addition 4,00,00,000/- 7,50,00,000/- 1,00,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act in Rs. ITA Nos. 1635 to 1637/Ahd/2019 Asst. Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2014-15 6 4 Addition 5,80,00,000/- Without

THE DCIT-CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE SIDDHI INFRABUILD PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V. Mahadeokar

3 Date of 31.03.2017 30.03.2017 30.03.2017 Issuance of notice u/s 148 4 Addition 4,00,00,000/- 7,50,00,000/- 1,00,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act in Rs. ITA Nos. 1635 to 1637/Ahd/2019 Asst. Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2014-15 6 4 Addition 5,80,00,000/- Without

SAKET M JAINI(HUF),AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-5, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 579/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Saket M. Jain (Huf), The Pr. Commissioner Of 403, 3Rd Eye Two, Vs. Income Tax-2, Nr. Joyalukkas Show Room, Ahmedabad. Opp. Parimal Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad.

3) and GP enhanced. (b) Why the sales amount of 4,02,00,055/- be not treated as unexplained cash credit in view of the finding of survey team that purchases are bogus. 11.6 The assessee in response to the query raised by the AO has made the submissions which are detailed as under: Asstt. Year

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S.DHARMEN MARBLE & STONE, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 794/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.171/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Dharmen Marble & Stone, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aabfd5172B

20. The next issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in in deleting the addition made by the AO for Rs. 3,81,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit under section 68

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GTC OILFIELDS SERVICES P. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the 8 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royappeal No. Ay Appellant Respondent Sn M/S. Gtc Oilfields Services P. Ltd., 2009-10 The Dcit, 61, New York Tower, A-Block, It(Ss)A Nos. 1-3 2010-11 Central Circle 1(4), Thaltej Char Rasta, S.G. Road, 314 To 316/Ahd/2019 2014-15 Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380054 Pan : Aaacg 8684 P The Dcit, M/S. Gtc Oilfields Services P. Ltd.

20 - Annexure-'B' of Form shows application of Income 11 22 by way of Investment in shares of Globe cologistics P. Ltd: Westwell Export P. Ltd. 7,78,00,000 Yamini Marketing P.Ltd. 3,95,00,000 11,73,00,000 - Form-2 (Taxes payable) 12 23 - Form - 3 (Intimation of tax payment) 13 24 - Form -4 Issued by PCIT

THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CAPAXO LOGISTICS PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1264/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.190/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 I.T.O., M/S. Capaxo Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Ward-1(1)(3), Vs. 302, Third Floor, Ahmedabad. 3Rd Eye, C.G.Cross Road, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad.

section 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT-A. 4.1 The assessee before the learned CIT(A) made detailed submissions on all the allegations framed by the AO during the assessment proceedings which are available on pages 23 to 47 of the order

DHARAMTAR MOTORS SERVICES PETROLEUM PRODUCT,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the results, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1438 & 2534/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S Dharamtar Motor Services Income Tax Officer, Petroleum Product, Vs. Ward 6(1)(4) C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Advocate 903, Ahmedabad. Sapphire Complex, C.G. Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aabfd9182F

section 68 of the Act. 2. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is a partnership firm, comprising two partners namely Chandrakant N Shah and Nimesh C Shah. The assessee is engaged in the activity of trading of petroleum products. The assessee (the partnership firm) was established as partnership firm sometime in the year

KIRTI MILEX LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.686/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 M/S. Kirti Milex Ltd., I.T.O, 5, Vasukanan, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Ward-2(1)(2), Nr.Lotus Flats, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad.

68 of Act of Rs.35,00,000/-. 6. The appellant craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal. 2. The 1st issue raised by the assessee is general in nature. Therefore we do not find any reason to adjudicate the same. Accordingly, we dismiss the ground of appeal of the assessee

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRENA S SUTARIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 796/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.172/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., Shrena S. Sutaria, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 8, Amrashagun Bunglows, Ahmedabad. Nr. Hathisingh Park, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Asqps7606E

section 68 of the Act. With C.O.No.172/Ahd/2019 Asstt. Year 2010-11 20 22. The learned CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under: The appellant contended that the AO in Para 8.5.1 at Page No.24 of the assessment order has observed that "It is noticed that