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

section 68 of the Act primarily on the basis of certain affidavits found during search and enquiries conducted by the Investigation Wing. Further, on the basis of entries in a seized Excel file, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.5,00,000/- u/s 69C treating the same as unexplained expenditure. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. STHAPATYA SHILP CONSTRUCTION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 907/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.170/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Sthapatya Shilp Construction, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 2, Abhiraj Complex, Ahmedabad. 68-B, Swastic Society, Ahmedabad. Pan: Abffs2922P

section 68 of the Act. 21. The assessee in the year under consideration has shown the loan from certain

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

section 68 of the Act. 21. It is noted from the assessment order that the assessment was completed ex parte

SHRI UMIYA COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. ,1, SENETARY ROAD , KUTCHHI PATIDAR VADI, PETLAD TAL. PETLAD DIST. ANAND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), PETLAD

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 68 was not applicable in assessee’s case. However, the AO added Rs.1,21,99,435/- under section

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. SARTHAV BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 908/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Sarthav Builders, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. B-1, Abhishree Complex, Ahmedabad. Opp. Star Bazar, Satellite, Ahmedabad. Pan: Abffs3812C

section 68 of the Act. 20.1 Both, the ld. DR and AR vehemently relied on the order of the authorities below as favorable to them. 21

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

section 68 of the Act. 21. The assessee in the year under consideration has shown the loan from certain

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 and added to the total income of the assessee. 20. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT-A. 21

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.

21,26,000.00 10,41,74,000.00 10,63,00,000.00 2012-13 Yamini Marketing Pvt Ltd. 11,93,000.00 5,84,57,000.00 5,96,50,000.00 2013-14 Ambika Commodeal P. Ltd. 68,90,000.00 11,36,85,000.00 12,05,75,000.00 Total 40,38,25,000.00 GTC Petrotech Pvt. Ltd. 2014-15 Ambika Commodeal

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 Income Tax Act. 2. That the Learned CIT(Appeal) has also erred in confirming the said addition as per his appeal order dated 21

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. MAYORA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Department are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 68 would not come into play, looking into the instant facts. 13. In the result, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) so as to call for any interference. Ground No. 2:- Ad-hoc disallowance of business expenditure @ 10% of Rs. 14,30,00,000/-. 14. The brief facts in relation to this ground

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. MAYORA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS "INBISCO INDIA PVT. LTD.), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Department are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 68 would not come into play, looking into the instant facts. 13. In the result, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) so as to call for any interference. Ground No. 2:- Ad-hoc disallowance of business expenditure @ 10% of Rs. 14,30,00,000/-. 14. The brief facts in relation to this ground

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

section 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 21. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal

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. 18. The assessee in the year under consideration has shown the loan from following parties: Sr.No. Name of Depositor PAN Amount(Rs.) 1 Saral Management AACHS8451H Rs.2,23,03,000/- Consultancy 2 Shreej Infrastructure ACKPS9048L Rs.2,00,00,000/- 18.1 The assessee in support of the impugned loan has filed copy

ARVINDBHAI PUNABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Accordingly accepted in principle, and the issue is restored to the\nAssessing Officer for fresh adjudication in terms of directions\nabove.\n25. In the combined result, the appeal of the assessee ...

section 68 of the Act, treating the said\namount as unexplained cash credit on account of large cash\ndeposits made in the following four ICICI Bank accounts held by\nthe assessee:\nSr. No.\nAccount Number\nAmount (Rs.)\n1\n006705000412\n12,99,100/-\n2\n093005001118\n8,22,21

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JAS INFRASPACE PRIVATE LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,93,96,668/- (Rs. 84.82 -15.88 crores income shown by the assessee ) was added on account of unexplained expenditure to the total income of the assessee. ITA No.2130&2131/Ahd/2017 & ITA No. 398/Ahd/2018 & 547/Ahd/2018 A.Ys. 2012-13&2013-14 & 2014-15 21 56. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT-A. 57. The assessee before

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JAS INFRA SPACE PRIVATE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,93,96,668/- (Rs. 84.82 -15.88 crores income shown by the assessee ) was added on account of unexplained expenditure to the total income of the assessee. ITA No.2130&2131/Ahd/2017 & ITA No. 398/Ahd/2018 & 547/Ahd/2018 A.Ys. 2012-13&2013-14 & 2014-15 21 56. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT-A. 57. The assessee before

JAS INFRASPACE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,93,96,668/- (Rs. 84.82 -15.88 crores income shown by the assessee ) was added on account of unexplained expenditure to the total income of the assessee. ITA No.2130&2131/Ahd/2017 & ITA No. 398/Ahd/2018 & 547/Ahd/2018 A.Ys. 2012-13&2013-14 & 2014-15 21 56. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT-A. 57. The assessee before

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JAS INFRA SPACE PRIVATE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,93,96,668/- (Rs. 84.82 -15.88 crores income shown by the assessee ) was added on account of unexplained expenditure to the total income of the assessee. ITA No.2130&2131/Ahd/2017 & ITA No. 398/Ahd/2018 & 547/Ahd/2018 A.Ys. 2012-13&2013-14 & 2014-15 21 56. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT-A. 57. The assessee before