MANISH DEVENDRAKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in full

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.918/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Manish Devendrakumar Shah The Ito बनाम/ 206, 2Nd Floor, Kalash 1 Ward-5(3)(1) V/S. Navrangpura Ahmedabad Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aqjps 4226 K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divatia, Ar & Shri Samir Vora, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20 /02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

206, 2nd Floor, Kalash 1 Ward-5(3)(1) v/s. Navrangpura Ahmedabad Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AQJPS 4226 K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.N. Divatia, AR & Shri Samir Vora, AR Revenue by : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 20 /02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 25/02/2025 आदेश

NARENDRA CHANDUBHAI RAFALIYA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(8), AHMEDABAD

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

68 cannot be invoked where the assessee has filed return of income under the provisions of section 44AD of the Act without maintaining books of account. 7.2 In the case of Smt. Madhu Raitani v. ACIT [2011] 10 taxmann.com 206

RAVIKUMAR KAMLESHBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -5(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

206 and synopsis of events running from pages 1 to 6supported by various case laws. The ld. AR before us submitted that he has been instructed not to press the ground relating to the rejection of the books of accounts under section 145(3) of the Act. As such, the ld. AR before us did challenge the order

ALPA UDAYKUMAR SHAH,,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2),, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Memebr

Section 68 of the Act. It is recorded that "There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized and the sales have been routed from de-mat account and the consideration has been received through banking channels." The above noted factors

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

ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MAHESHWARI SALES CORPORATION, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1306/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Ito Maheshwari Sales Corporation बनाम/ Ward-4(2)(3) C-111, Ganesh Meridin V/S. Ahmedabad Nr.Sola Bridge, Sola Ahmedabad-380 058 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aalfm 4917 H (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 11/04/2025, Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-2019. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Ito Vs. Maheshwari Sales Corporation Asst. Year : 2018-19

section 68 could be made as it would amount to double taxation of the same income, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd., Tax Appeal No. 2471 of 2009 (decided on 03.07.2012). During the appellate proceedings, the assessee also furnished copies of bills No. 206

AYUSH PAVANKUMAR AGRAWAL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 143(3) of the Act, determining total\nincome of the assessee at Rs.2,33,95,658/- by making the following\nadditions:\nSr.\nNo.\nNature of Addition\nSection\nInvoked\nAmount (Rs.)\n1.\nSale proceeds of Kushal Ltd.\nshares\n68\n2,29,10,339/-\n2.\nEstimated commission on alleged\naccommodation entries\n69C\n4,58,206/-\nTotal\n2,33,68

NISHANT CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roynishant Construction Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Ltd., 801 – 802, Regency Circle – 3(1)(1), Plaza, Anand Nagar Road, Ahmedabad. Satellite, Ahmedabad – 380 015. [Pan No.Aaacn 3752 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) ..

section 147. Nishant Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Assessment Year 2010-11 It is further submitted without prejudice to the above that the alleged statement of Mr. Bharat Shah is relied upon for which no cross examination is given though specifically requested by the appellant. (Para 13 of letter dated 11.12.2014 Page 11 of the EXHIBIT-A attached with

THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(4), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI NILESHKUMAR DASHRATHBHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 68 of the Act. 4.2 In addition the AO also made addition of Rs. 2,09,100/- being commission expenses incurred for taking accommodation entry in guise of long term capital as discussed above. 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). 5.1 The assessee before the learned CIT (A) besides reiterating his submission, contended

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI MAHESH SOMABHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 68 of the Act. It is recorded that "There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized and the sales have been routed from de-mat account and the consideration has been received through banking channels." The above noted factors

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

206 ITR 727, and, more so in this case, particularly when Explanation below section 149(3), which did not come up for consideration before Their Lordships, has explicitly been relied upon by the learned Commissioner (Departmental Representative) before us. The Hon'ble non-jurisdictional High Court judgment, as we have seen in our analysis 44 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

206 ITR 727, and, more so in this case, particularly when Explanation below section 149(3), which did not come up for consideration before Their Lordships, has explicitly been relied upon by the learned Commissioner (Departmental Representative) before us. The Hon'ble non-jurisdictional High Court judgment, as we have seen in our analysis 44 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

206 ITR 727, and, more so in this case, particularly when Explanation below section 149(3), which did not come up for consideration before Their Lordships, has explicitly been relied upon by the learned Commissioner (Departmental Representative) before us. The Hon'ble non-jurisdictional High Court judgment, as we have seen in our analysis 44 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

206 ITR 727, and, more so in this case, particularly when Explanation below section 149(3), which did not come up for consideration before Their Lordships, has explicitly been relied upon by the learned Commissioner (Departmental Representative) before us. The Hon'ble non-jurisdictional High Court judgment, as we have seen in our analysis 44 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

206 ITR 727, and, more so in this case, particularly when Explanation below section 149(3), which did not come up for consideration before Their Lordships, has explicitly been relied upon by the learned Commissioner (Departmental Representative) before us. The Hon'ble non-jurisdictional High Court judgment, as we have seen in our analysis 44 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

206 ITR 727, and, more so in this case, particularly when Explanation below section 149(3), which did not come up for consideration before Their Lordships, has explicitly been relied upon by the learned Commissioner (Departmental Representative) before us. The Hon'ble non-jurisdictional High Court judgment, as we have seen in our analysis 44 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

206 ITR 727, and, more so in this case, particularly when Explanation below section 149(3), which did not come up for consideration before Their Lordships, has explicitly been relied upon by the learned Commissioner (Departmental Representative) before us. The Hon'ble non-jurisdictional High Court judgment, as we have seen in our analysis 44 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEHAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

206 ITR 727, and, more so in this case, particularly when Explanation below section 149(3), which did not come up for consideration before Their Lordships, has explicitly been relied upon by the learned Commissioner (Departmental Representative) before us. The Hon'ble non-jurisdictional High Court judgment, as we have seen in our analysis 44 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

206 ITR 727, and, more so in this case, particularly when Explanation below section 149(3), which did not come up for consideration before Their Lordships, has explicitly been relied upon by the learned Commissioner (Departmental Representative) before us. The Hon'ble non-jurisdictional High Court judgment, as we have seen in our analysis 44 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019