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)

202 (SC) dismissed SLP against High Court ruling that where Tribunal deleted I.T.A No. 1199/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No 19 Veenita Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT addition under section 68

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

68 of the Act. Thus the ground of appeal raised by the Assessee is hereby allowed. 29. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the addition made by the AO for ₹ 15 Lacs under the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. 30. The AO during the assessment

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

68 of the Act. Thus the ground of appeal raised by the Assessee is hereby allowed. 29. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the addition made by the AO for ₹ 15 Lacs under the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. 30. The AO during the assessment

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

68 of the Act. Thus the ground of appeal raised by the Assessee is hereby allowed. 29. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the addition made by the AO for ₹ 15 Lacs under the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. 30. The AO during the assessment

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

68 of the Act. Thus the ground of appeal raised by the Assessee is hereby allowed. 29. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the addition made by the AO for ₹ 15 Lacs under the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. 30. The AO during the assessment

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

202 (SC) dismissed SLP against High Court ruling that where Tribunal deleted addition under section 68 made to assessee

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

NAVRANGPURA ORGANISERS & DEV. PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

68 of the Income Tax Act contemplates that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof, or the explanation offered by the assessee is not, in the opinion of the AO satisfactory, then the sum so credited

NAVRATNA ORGANISERS & DEV. PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENT. CIRCLE 1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

68 of the Income Tax Act contemplates that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof, or the explanation offered by the assessee is not, in the opinion of the AO satisfactory, then the sum so credited

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

202 could not date of sale of materialized. original assets as no registered deed was done and flat was no ITA nos.1908& 1991/AHD/2018 Asstt. Year 2011-12 12 inhabited and was under construction. 3 Manekbag 24.09.2007 Old bunglow Only given advance against banakhat, however, disputed and deal could not got materialized. The advance amount not received back. 4 Flat

ADESHWAR FLEXIPACK PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2012-13. I.T.A No. 2356/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 2 Adeshwar Flexipack Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in the manufacturing

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

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

202 (SC) dismissed SLP against High Court ruling that where Tribunal deleted addition under section 68 made to assessee

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

202 (SC) dismissed SLP against High Court ruling that where Tribunal deleted addition under section 68 made to assessee

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

202 (SC) dismissed SLP against High Court ruling that where Tribunal deleted addition under section 68 made to assessee

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

202 (SC) dismissed SLP against High Court ruling that where Tribunal deleted addition under section 68 made to assessee

HINIMA ATUL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2017-18

202, Safal Param, Ward – 3(3)(2), Nr. Indraprashth-VI, Ahmedabad. Prahlad Nagar, Vs. Ahmedabad – 380 015. [PAN – AFGPS 2851 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Tej Shah, AR Revenue by Shri Urjit B. Shah, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement 04.06.2024 O R D E R This appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated

THE DCIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI RASIKBHAI RAMJIBHAI RAVAL,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasadassessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Rasikbhai Ramjibhai Raval, Gandhinagar Circle, 30, Rajpath Bunglows, Gandhinagar. Opp. Swagat Rain Forest –Iv, Sargasan, Gandhinagar. [Pan – Acvpr 9634 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sumit Kumar, Sr. D.R. Respondent By : Shri Mehul K. Patel Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2017 O R D E R

section 68 of the Act. 5. The assessee assailed the assessment before the CIT(A) and explained that its books of account are audited and it is incorrect to say that the assessee never complied with the requirement of the Assessing Officer. The assessee furnished all the details before the CIT(A). A remand report was called for from

VISHAL BALVANTRAI AGARWAL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD -1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.226/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Vishal Balvantrai Agarwal The Pr.Cit बनाम/ 249 New Cloth Market Ahmedabad-1 V/S. O/S. Raipur Gate Ahmedabad – 380 002 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Adbpa 4462 G (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Divyakant Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

202. The DR stated that the PCIT has assumed his jurisdiction in accordance with Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act, after observing that the AO has passed order without making enquiries and verification which should have been made. 6. In rejoinder, the AR stated that the AO has enquired in detail about the interest and after satisfying