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

RANDHEJA DUDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3 NOW WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt. Year : 2017-18 Randheja Dudh Utpadak The Ito, Ward-3 Sahakari Mandli Ltd. Vs Now Ward-1 To-Randheja Gandhinagar. Tal: Gandhinagar Pin : 382 620 Pan : Aacar 5164 K (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short Referred To As Ld.Cit(A)] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 22.11.2021 Pertaining To Asst.Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Notified That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By Limitation By 581 Days. In Order To Explain The Reasons For The Impugned Delay, The Ld.Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Cit(A)/Nfac Order Was Passed Against The Assessee On 22.11.2021. However, Due To Covid-19 Pandemic Limitation For Filing Appeal Before The Court Of Law Was Extended Till February, 2022. Therefore, After Expiry Of The Limitation For Filing Of The Appeal On Feb., 2022, The Assessee Was Required To File Appeal Within 60 Days Of The Same I.E. By April, 2022. But The Assessee Could File The Appeal On

Section 80A(5) of the Act, as interpreted above by us, the assessee’s claim having been made in a return of income, it is allowable. 21. The above findings are supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kannur Vs. CIT, reported in [2016] 68

THE ACIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

21,084 33.88% 57.02% 4 1001-1500 4,18,12,615 33,179 9.28% 66.30% 5 1501-2000 2,46,

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

21,084 33.88% 57.02% 4 1001-1500 4,18,12,615 33,179 9.28% 66.30% 5 1501-2000 2,46,

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

21,084 33.88% 57.02% 4 1001-1500 4,18,12,615 33,179 9.28% 66.30% 5 1501-2000 2,46,

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

21,084 33.88% 57.02% 4 1001-1500 4,18,12,615 33,179 9.28% 66.30% 5 1501-2000 2,46,

THE VARDHMAN STAMPINGS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

section 45(5)(e) of the Act read with Rule 6DDD(4) of\nthe I.T. Act.\n• All the foreign currency derivatives transactions were carried out by\na broker of MCX Stock Exchange Ltd electronically and it is\nsupported by time stamped contract notes issued by such brokers.\n• The assessee has enclosed three copies of bills

THE VARDHMAN STAMPINGS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

section 45(5)(e) of the Act read with Rule 6DDD(4) of\nthe I.T. Act.\nAll the foreign currency derivatives transactions were carried out by\na broker of MCX Stock Exchange Ltd electronically and it is\nsupported by time stamped contract notes issued by such brokers.\n• The assessee has enclosed three copies of bills for the losses

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

5. Respectfully following the decision of ITAT Pune Bench in the case of M/s.Bhagur Urban Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., in ITA No.561/PUN/2022, it is held that addition made by AO under section 68 are not maintainable. Accordingly, AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs.1,21

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

5 9. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee made ground-wise submissions. 10. In respect of Ground No.1, challenging the addition of Rs.32,61,500/- under section 69A of the Act, the AR submitted that the assessee had maintained two sets of cash books, namely, the main cash book and the petty

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 parties as detailed under: Sr.No. Name of Depositor PAN Amount(Rs.) 1 Abhishilp Shops & AAAAA797K 88,97,000 Office Co-op. Soc. 2. Kalpesh Patel Not Submitted 10,00,000 3. Rajshah Enterrprise ACCR9569C 5

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V. Mahadeokar

5,80,00,000/- treated as unexplained money under section 69A Date Name Amount AO’s Annexure decoded written decoded inference A-86 p.9 24-Sep-2010 Kalpesh 2,00,00,000 Cash paid A-86 p.110 25-Aug- Kalpesh 60,00,000 Cash paid 2010 A-129 p.21 21-Aug- Kalpesh 1,50,00,000 Cash paid

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V. Mahadeokar

5,80,00,000/- treated as unexplained money under section 69A Date Name Amount AO’s Annexure decoded written decoded inference A-86 p.9 24-Sep-2010 Kalpesh 2,00,00,000 Cash paid A-86 p.110 25-Aug- Kalpesh 60,00,000 Cash paid 2010 A-129 p.21 21-Aug- Kalpesh 1,50,00,000 Cash paid

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 parties as detailed under: Sr.No. Name of Depositor PAN Amount (Rs.) 1. Saral Management & Consultancy AACHS8451H 3,76,00,000 2. Kalpesh Patel 5

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

5,00,000/- has been repaid back with a period of 2 days and hence the appellant firm has not paid interest on such amount. Sthapatya Shilp Builder and Sthapatya Sangam are the group entity and the assessment jurisdiction falls under the jurisdiction of AO and accordingly the bank statements, income-tax returns and other details are already available with

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

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

5 lacs and re-deposit the same. As per the AO With C.O.No.172/Ahd/2019 Asstt. Year 2010-11 16 the modus operandi of the assessee was very unusual. Thus the AO treated the amount of cash deposit as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. However, the learned CIT (A) was pleased to delete the addition made

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)

21,51,200 erroneously held to be unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act read with section 115BBE of the Act. 3. That the Learned Assessing Officer after has even otherwise failed to appreciate that cash sales since have already been offered as income by the appellant could not presumptively be rejected and held as unexplained money