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 by making the addition to the total income of the assessee. 10. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT-A. 11. The assessee before the learned CIT(A) reiterated that cash was deposited out of opening balance and withdrawal made during the year and all the withdrawal and deposits are duly recorded

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 by making the addition to the total income of the assessee. 12. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT-A. With C.O.No.169/Ahd/2019 Asstt. Year 2010-11 15 12.1 The assessee before the learned CIT(A) reiterated that cash was deposited out of opening balance and withdrawal made during the year

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

246 (Chandigarh - Trib.), held that where profit declared by assessee under presumptive taxation as provided under section 44AD was accepted, Assessing Officer could not make separate addition by invoking provisions of section 69C of the Act. The facts of this case were that assessee was a civil contractor. He had declared its profits under section 44AD

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

68. [Para 8] 8.2 The next controversy arises whether the addition can be made on estimated basis on the amount of unaccounted sales as admitted by the assessee during the appellate proceeding and elaborated above. In this regard we note that assessee itself has admitted that sales were made outside books in order to gain some extra profit besides commission

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,VII,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

68. [Para 8] 8.2 The next controversy arises whether the addition can be made on estimated basis on the amount of unaccounted sales as admitted by the assessee during the appellate proceeding and elaborated above. In this regard we note that assessee itself has admitted that sales were made outside books in order to gain some extra profit besides commission

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

68. [Para 8] 8.2 The next controversy arises whether the addition can be made on estimated basis on the amount of unaccounted sales as admitted by the assessee during the appellate proceeding and elaborated above. In this regard we note that assessee itself has admitted that sales were made outside books in order to gain some extra profit besides commission

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

68. [Para 8] 8.2 The next controversy arises whether the addition can be made on estimated basis on the amount of unaccounted sales as admitted by the assessee during the appellate proceeding and elaborated above. In this regard we note that assessee itself has admitted that sales were made outside books in order to gain some extra profit besides commission

THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

68. [Para 8] 8.2 The next controversy arises whether the addition can be made on estimated basis on the amount of unaccounted sales as admitted by the assessee during the appellate proceeding and elaborated above. In this regard we note that assessee itself has admitted that sales were made outside books in order to gain some extra profit besides commission

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

68. [Para 8] 8.2 The next controversy arises whether the addition can be made on estimated basis on the amount of unaccounted sales as admitted by the assessee during the appellate proceeding and elaborated above. In this regard we note that assessee itself has admitted that sales were made outside books in order to gain some extra profit besides commission

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-12,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

68. [Para 8] 8.2 The next controversy arises whether the addition can be made on estimated basis on the amount of unaccounted sales as admitted by the assessee during the appellate proceeding and elaborated above. In this regard we note that assessee itself has admitted that sales were made outside books in order to gain some extra profit besides commission

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

68 of the Act. ITA No. 391/Ahd/2018 [Alpa Udaykumar Shah Vs. ITO] A.Y. 2014-15 - 3 - 3.2 In response to the show cause notice, the assessee submitted that she has been dealing in investment in shares and securities of different companies since many years and also acting as sub-broker for Kunverji Finstock Private Limited Ahmedabad. She, in the normal

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

PROLIFE INDUSTRIES LTD.,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

246/ and for AY 2017- 18 the company has shown loss of Rs. 13,99,799/- whereas it is claimed to have provided unsecured loan of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- to assessee during the year under consideration. Similarly, in the case of ANR Finance Limited, the P&L account of the ANR Finance Ltd. for FY 2015-16 shows

PROLIFE INDUSTRIES LTD.,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

246/ and for AY 2017- 18 the company has shown loss of Rs. 13,99,799/- whereas it is claimed to have provided unsecured loan of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- to assessee during the year under consideration. Similarly, in the case of ANR Finance Limited, the P&L account of the ANR Finance Ltd. for FY 2015-16 shows

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PINAC STOCK BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri T.R Senthil Kumar

68 of the Act Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby portly allowed." (iii) The appellant against the addition of Rs 52,00,000/-confirmed by the Hon'bie ITAT, as discussed in para 5.1 (iii) above, a Miscellaneous Application was filed by the assessee claiming that the Hon'ble ITAT has inadvertently overlooked documents in respect

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

246 (Delhi) wherein Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that: “13. The Court finds that in none of the above grounds is there any reference to any inquiry conducted by the AO of the CIT (A) on examining the above documents, which were available with the AO. The crucial element of explaining how, on the basis of such record

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

246 (Delhi) wherein Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that: “13. The Court finds that in none of the above grounds is there any reference to any inquiry conducted by the AO of the CIT (A) on examining the above documents, which were available with the AO. The crucial element of explaining how, on the basis of such record

M/S. KEDAR COTTON INDUSTRIES,,MEHSANA vs. DCIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE,, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Kedar Cotton Industries, Deputy Commissioner Of Survey No.50/1, Vs Income-Tax, At. Post Budasan, Mehsana Circle, Tal. Kadi, Mehsana Mehsana Pan : Aadfk 2494 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hem Chhajed, Ca Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/06/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad (“Cit(A)” In Short) Dated 20.02.2019. 2. The Relevant Facts Of The Case Giving Rise To This Appeal Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Which Is Engaged In The Business Of Ginning & Pressing Of Cotton. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By It On 23.09.2010 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.5,14,300/-. The Said Return Was Selected For Scrutiny & In The Assessment Originally Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short) Vide Order Dated 26.03.2013, Total Income Of The Assessee Was Determined By The Assessing Officer At Rs.3,84,53,522/- After Making An Addition Of Rs.3,79,39,222/-. Against The Said Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, An Appeal Was Preferred By The Assessee Before The Learned Cit(A) Who Allowed The Said Kedar Cotton Industries Vs. Dcit Ay : 2010-11 2

68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 5. In Ground Nos. 2 & 3 as originally raised in this appeal as well as in the additional ground raised during the course of appellate proceedings before the Tribunal, the assessee has challenged the validity