JHAVERI TRADING AND INVESTMENT PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENT. CIR. 1(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 401 To 403/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2012-2013 To 2014-2015) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 399 & 400/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2010-2011 & 2011-12)

3) read with section 147 of the Act. 25. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee before us submitted that he has been instructed by the assessee not to press this ground of appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the same as not pressed. 26. The 2nd issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred

JHAVERI TRADING AND INVESTMENT PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENT. CIR. 1(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 401 To 403/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2012-2013 To 2014-2015) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 399 & 400/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2010-2011 & 2011-12)

3) read with section 147 of the Act. 25. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee before us submitted that he has been instructed by the assessee not to press this ground of appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the same as not pressed. 26. The 2nd issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred

JHAVERI TRADING AND INVESTMENT PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENT. CIR. 1(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 401 To 403/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2012-2013 To 2014-2015) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 399 & 400/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2010-2011 & 2011-12)

3) read with section 147 of the Act. 25. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee before us submitted that he has been instructed by the assessee not to press this ground of appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the same as not pressed. 26. The 2nd issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred

JHAVERI TRADING AND INVESTMENT PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENT. CIR. 1(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 401 To 403/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2012-2013 To 2014-2015) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 399 & 400/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2010-2011 & 2011-12)

3) read with section 147 of the Act. 25. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee before us submitted that he has been instructed by the assessee not to press this ground of appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the same as not pressed. 26. The 2nd issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred

SHRI ANILBHAI HIRALAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

200/- made by AO on account of unexplained investment. 12 Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts directing AO to make addition to the extent income determined in future not covering unexplained investment instead of confining himself to deletion of addition made by AO of unexplained investment u/s 69A of the Act as application of income

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHREYASI DHARMEN SUTARIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 797/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.173/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., Shreyasi Dharmen Sutaria, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. 2Nd Address: 8, Amrashagun Bunglows, Nr. Hathisingh Park, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Awops1881R

section 68 of the Act. 20.2 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 unaccounted cash receipt of various' projects and land

ANISH RAJNIKANT SHAH,AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

200 erroneously held to be unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act read with section 115BBE of the Act. 3

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. EL DORADO BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

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

3. The issue raised by the Revenue is that Learned CIT-(A) erred in deleting the addition made under Section 68 of the Act for Rs.29,82,89,600/- on the ground of violation of natural justice. 4. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee in the present case is a private limited company. The assessee in the year

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

3 cars namely Audi-A6, Sonata, Innova on the reasoning A.Y. 2009-2010 with others 11 that the assessee has failed to furnish the ownership of the cars in dispute which is one of the prerequisite to claim depreciation. Admittedly, the assessee has furnished the purchase invoices and RC book which are placed on pages

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD), CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

3 cars namely Audi-A6, Sonata, Innova on the reasoning A.Y. 2009-2010 with others 11 that the assessee has failed to furnish the ownership of the cars in dispute which is one of the prerequisite to claim depreciation. Admittedly, the assessee has furnished the purchase invoices and RC book which are placed on pages

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

3 cars namely Audi-A6, Sonata, Innova on the reasoning A.Y. 2009-2010 with others 11 that the assessee has failed to furnish the ownership of the cars in dispute which is one of the prerequisite to claim depreciation. Admittedly, the assessee has furnished the purchase invoices and RC book which are placed on pages

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

3 cars namely Audi-A6, Sonata, Innova on the reasoning A.Y. 2009-2010 with others 11 that the assessee has failed to furnish the ownership of the cars in dispute which is one of the prerequisite to claim depreciation. Admittedly, the assessee has furnished the purchase invoices and RC book which are placed on pages

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,670) in CENVAT credit. AO further found that ''closing stock” ought to have been valued as per ''Inclusive method" which was admittedly not done since assessee had followed “Exclusive method". Thus, AO took a view that if "closing stock” is valued as per "Inclusive method", value of "closing stock" is to ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,670) in CENVAT credit. AO further found that ''closing stock” ought to have been valued as per ''Inclusive method" which was admittedly not done since assessee had followed “Exclusive method". Thus, AO took a view that if "closing stock” is valued as per "Inclusive method", value of "closing stock" is to ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,670) in CENVAT credit. AO further found that ''closing stock” ought to have been valued as per ''Inclusive method" which was admittedly not done since assessee had followed “Exclusive method". Thus, AO took a view that if "closing stock” is valued as per "Inclusive method", value of "closing stock" is to ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(OSD),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,670) in CENVAT credit. AO further found that ''closing stock” ought to have been valued as per ''Inclusive method" which was admittedly not done since assessee had followed “Exclusive method". Thus, AO took a view that if "closing stock” is valued as per "Inclusive method", value of "closing stock" is to ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,670) in CENVAT credit. AO further found that ''closing stock” ought to have been valued as per ''Inclusive method" which was admittedly not done since assessee had followed “Exclusive method". Thus, AO took a view that if "closing stock” is valued as per "Inclusive method", value of "closing stock" is to ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,670) in CENVAT credit. AO further found that ''closing stock” ought to have been valued as per ''Inclusive method" which was admittedly not done since assessee had followed “Exclusive method". Thus, AO took a view that if "closing stock” is valued as per "Inclusive method", value of "closing stock" is to ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International