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

68,08,860/- of net receipt of margin money on the basis of remand report by AO without issuing show cause notice of enhancement. 20 Levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B, & 234C is not justified. 21 Initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify

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

section 69B of the Act. 46. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its ground of appeal for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 2130/AHD/2017 for the assessment year 2012-13. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 2130/AHD/2017 shall also be applicable

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

section 69B of the Act. 46. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its ground of appeal for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 2130/AHD/2017 for the assessment year 2012-13. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 2130/AHD/2017 shall also be applicable

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

section 69B of the Act. 46. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its ground of appeal for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 2130/AHD/2017 for the assessment year 2012-13. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 2130/AHD/2017 shall also be applicable

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

section 69B of the Act. 46. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its ground of appeal for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 2130/AHD/2017 for the assessment year 2012-13. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 2130/AHD/2017 shall also be applicable

THE ACIT,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1384/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08)

68,33,606/- which is arising out of the payment made towards interest under section 234B of the Act. Copy of the ITNS 150 in respect of the order under consideration is enclosed at page no. 1-2 of the paper book evidencing the working set out above. The appellant Submits that it is entitled to interest under section

SHAILESHKUMAR DAHYABHAI PATEL,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(2) (NOW DCIT CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, GUJARAT, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, Ground Number 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68 of the Act and he confirmed the addition of ₹60,50,000/- as unexplained cash credits. 6. In relation to the disallowance of interest expenditure of ₹8,98,956/- under section 69C of the Act, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) held that once the principal loan itself was held to be unexplained, the interest claimed thereon could

DUSHYANT SHANTILAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

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

sections": [ "143(3)", "133A", "143(2)", "142(1)", "68", "69", "69A", "270A", "271AAC", "234A", "234B", "234C", "234D", "250" ], "issues

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

sections": [ "250", "143(2)", "143(3)", "68", "69C", "133(6)", "271AAC", "234B", "234C", "253(5)" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) was justified

M/S. BODAL CHEMICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,885 Total 4,25,93,802 4,83,37,429 2,82,74,504 Less: Business loss utilized in 69,41,861 - 6,4,1861 A.Y. 2005-06 Amount available for deduction 3,56,51,941 4,83,37,429 2,13,32,643 in A.Y. 2006-07 Lower of unabsorbed 3,56,51,941 depreciation on business loss

IRM PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1590/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Irm Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Irm House, बनाम/ Of Income Tax, V/S. Off. C.G Raod, Circle 2(1)(1), Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380009. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaci3678M अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr-Dr

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in initiating reassessment proceedings vide issuance of reopening notice dated 31 March 2018 under section 148 of the IT Act without appreciating the fact that it was issued beyond a period of four years

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

3,00,797/- under section 56 of the Act as unaccounted interest income. The total income for A.Y. 2013–14 was accordingly assessed at ₹1,06,68,000/-, tax was charged under section 115BBE, interest under sections 234A, 234B

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

3,00,797/- under section 56 of the Act as unaccounted interest income. The total income for A.Y. 2013–14 was accordingly assessed at ₹1,06,68,000/-, tax was charged under section 115BBE, interest under sections 234A, 234B

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

3,00,797/- under section 56 of the Act as unaccounted interest income. The total income for A.Y. 2013–14 was accordingly assessed at ₹1,06,68,000/-, tax was charged under section 115BBE, interest under sections 234A, 234B

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

3,00,797/- under section 56 of the Act as unaccounted interest income. The total income for A.Y. 2013–14 was accordingly assessed at ₹1,06,68,000/-, tax was charged under section 115BBE, interest under sections 234A, 234B

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

3,00,797/- under section 56 of the Act as unaccounted interest income. The total income for A.Y. 2013–14 was accordingly assessed at ₹1,06,68,000/-, tax was charged under section 115BBE, interest under sections 234A, 234B

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

3,00,797/- under section 56 of the Act as unaccounted interest income. The total income for A.Y. 2013–14 was accordingly assessed at ₹1,06,68,000/-, tax was charged under section 115BBE, interest under sections 234A, 234B

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

3,00,797/- under section 56 of the Act as unaccounted interest income. The total income for A.Y. 2013–14 was accordingly assessed at ₹1,06,68,000/-, tax was charged under section 115BBE, interest under sections 234A, 234B

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1) , AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

3,00,797/- under section 56 of the Act as unaccounted interest income. The total income for A.Y. 2013–14 was accordingly assessed at ₹1,06,68,000/-, tax was charged under section 115BBE, interest under sections 234A, 234B