GITABEN DINESHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68 of the Act and the assessment was completed on that basis. 4. Before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings as well as the Gitaben Dineshbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 3– addition on merits. The primary ground raised was that the reassessment notice under section 148 was issued

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

ATULBHAI AMRITLAL MEHTA,AHMEDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 3(2) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

248,90,919 under section 68 be deleted. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts

SANDEEP MOHANRAJ SINGHI,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE4(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

68 of I.T. Act, 1961, is not sustainable….” 11. The Revenue has been unable to controvert the findings of Ld. CIT(A) regarding the source of funds utilised by Arrow for acquisition of shares of the assessee trust. The assessee had not only established the genuineness of the transactions but also brought on record evidences to establish the creditworthiness

THE ANKLAV MERCANTILE CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,ANAND vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

248/- during the year but failed to furnish any evidence to establish the genuineness of these loans, despite being provided several opportunities by way of issuance of notices under section 142(1) of the Act. In absence of such proof, such loans were held to be unexplained cash credit under section 68

AMIT RAJNIKANT JOSHI,AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.367/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Amit Rajnikant Joshi The Dy.Cit बनाम/ C-29, Aryaman Bungalows Anand Nagar V/S. Opp. Anand Niketan School Prahaladnagar Road Thaltej, Shilaj Road Ahmedabad – 380 05 Ahmedabad – 380 059 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abmpj 6798 F अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prashant Shrivastav, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

68,248/-. b. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the AO making addition under section

SHRI RAMESHBHAI AMTHABHAI DESAI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing Of The Appeal.” Total Tax Effect 67,053”

248 (SC) held that where Tribunal, relying on a decision of Karnataka High Court, allowed appeal of assessee holding that notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) was bad in law, as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated and High Court

THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. M/S. GREENSPACE INFRATECH PVT. LTD., VADODARA

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamblei.Ta. No.510/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Year: 2013-14)

68 of the Act - Rs. 6,56,66,047/- (ii) Unexplained Sundry Creditors/others - Rs. 77,02,144/- (iii) Unexplained investment - Rs.26,49,40,943/- 3. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has given relief to the assessee by deleting an amount of Rs. 26,49,40,943/- which

GREENSPACE INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(1)(3) NOW WARD-1(1)(1), VADODARA

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamblei.Ta. No.510/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Year: 2013-14)

68 of the Act - Rs. 6,56,66,047/- (ii) Unexplained Sundry Creditors/others - Rs. 77,02,144/- (iii) Unexplained investment - Rs.26,49,40,943/- 3. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has given relief to the assessee by deleting an amount of Rs. 26,49,40,943/- which

RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

section 192 of the Act. But the assessee has claimed such expenses without deducting the TDS. Thus the impugned expenses cannot be allowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the lower authorities. 17. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available

M/S. RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

section 192 of the Act. But the assessee has claimed such expenses without deducting the TDS. Thus the impugned expenses cannot be allowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the lower authorities. 17. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available

AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,860/- to the total income of the assessee on a protective basis as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 6. Further, since the assessee had neither filed her return of income under section 139(1) within the prescribed time nor in response to notice under section 153C, penalty proceedings under section 271F were

AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,860/- to the total income of the assessee on a protective basis as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 6. Further, since the assessee had neither filed her return of income under section 139(1) within the prescribed time nor in response to notice under section 153C, penalty proceedings under section 271F were

AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,860/- to the total income of the assessee on a protective basis as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 6. Further, since the assessee had neither filed her return of income under section 139(1) within the prescribed time nor in response to notice under section 153C, penalty proceedings under section 271F were

JT.CIT.(OSD),CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. AXIS BANK LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 852/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Axis Bank Limited, J.C.I.T., “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Circle-1(1)(1), Opp. Samtheshwar Mahadev, Ahmedabad. Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacu2414K

68,248/- 5.1 The assessee already made disallowance u/s 14A of the Act for Rs. 1,16,45,009/- only. Accordingly, the AO made the disallowance of the balance amount of Rs. 239,41,23,239/- and added to the total income of the assessee. 6. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld.CIT(A), who found that

AXIS BANK LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. JT.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 852/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Axis Bank Limited, J.C.I.T., “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Circle-1(1)(1), Opp. Samtheshwar Mahadev, Ahmedabad. Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacu2414K

68,248/- 5.1 The assessee already made disallowance u/s 14A of the Act for Rs. 1,16,45,009/- only. Accordingly, the AO made the disallowance of the balance amount of Rs. 239,41,23,239/- and added to the total income of the assessee. 6. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld.CIT(A), who found that

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AWAS DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 368/Ahd/2020 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T, M/S Awas Developers, Central Circle-1(4), Vs. “Agam Buglows” Ahmedabad. Opp. Subhash Society, Sanand-Kalol Road, Ahmedabad.

section 133A of the Act dated 04-03-2010. During the survey, the statement of Shri Ganshayamsingh Vaghela, a partner of the firm was recorded. In the statement, Shri Ganshayamsingh Vaghela in response to question No. 6 explained that the assessee has undertaken a project namely “Agam Bungalows” consisting of 40 Bungalows. 37 Bungalows out of 40 have already

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , VADODARA vs. DARSHNAM LIFE SPACES PVT LTD, VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Darshnam Life Spaces Pvt. Income Tax, Ltd., Central Circle-1, 3Rd Floor, Platinum Complex, Vs Vadodara Opp. Ganga Jamuna Hospital, Subhanpura, Vadodara-390023 [Pan No.:Aadcd2030M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 12.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28.06.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue As Against The Appellate Order Dated 14.06.2023 Passed By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 12, Ahmedabad Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “The Act”) Relating To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows:-

68 of the ITA Act towards unexplained unsecured loan observing that the allegation of genuineness of the transactions and credit worthiness of BVPL is not proven despite the facts the BVPL has failed to explain genuineness of the transactions and credit worthiness of the so called investors especially when the returned income of all such investors are less than