ACIT (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. DR K R SHROFF FOUNDATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\n\n29

68 of I.T. Act, 1961, is not sustainable....”\n\n11. The Revenue has been unable to controvert the findings of Ld.\nCIT(A) regarding the source of funds utilised by Arrow for acquisition of\nshares of the assessee trust. The assessee had not only established the\ngenuneness of the transactions but also brought on record evidences to\nestablish the creditworthiness

ACIT, CIRCLE-3(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KRAFT LAMINATE, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Years : 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Kraft Laminate, Income-Tax, Vs C/O. Laxmi Timber, Nr. Circle 3(2), Ahmedabad Mahalaxmi Textile Mill, Opp. Rajbai Patel Timber Market, Narol Naroda Highway, Narol, Ahmedabad-382405 Pan : Aamfk 8120 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-:

3 KIREN PRAVINBHAI PATEL, ARJPP3870H 250000.00 LOAN GIVEN VIA CHEQUE FROM OWN BANK ADD: 6/A SHREE RAMKRISHNA CO. OP. ACCOUNT. PAN CARD AND ITR ARE ON FILE AND HOUSING SOC. GITAMANDIR ROAD, NR. THUS SOURCE OF IMCOME BEING BUSINESS INCOME SHAHALAM TOLNAKA, AHMEDABAD-380007 AND LOAN AMOUNT GIVEN IS VERIFIED HEREWITH 4 PRAVINBHAI HIRABHAI PATEL, ARJPP7870H 200000.00 LOAN GIVEN

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. EL DORADO BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

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

3 AY: 2009-10 ii. Shri Partik R. Shah in the statement recorded during the search has admitted that he was engaged in providing the accommodation entries in the form of share capital, bogus purchases, bogus sales and the bogus investments through the companies as discussed above. 7. In view of the above, the AO initiated the income escapement proceedings

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI RAJESH SUNDERDAS VASWANI, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

3) r.w.s. 153A 26.12.17 No 19 IT(SS)A244/Ahd/20 2012-13 Department 143(3) r.w.s. 153A 26.12.17 No 19 IT(SS)A245/Ahd/20 2013-14 Department 143(3) r.w.s. 153A 26.12.17 No 19 IT(SS)A246/Ahd/20 2014-15 Department 143(3) r.w.s. 153A 26.12.17 No 19 IT(SS)A247/Ahd/20 2015-16 Department 143(3) r.w.s. 153B 26.12.17 No 19 Shri Dilipkumar

M/S. VENUS INFRABUILD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

3) r.w.s. 153A 26.12.17 No 19 IT(SS)A244/Ahd/20 2012-13 Department 143(3) r.w.s. 153A 26.12.17 No 19 IT(SS)A245/Ahd/20 2013-14 Department 143(3) r.w.s. 153A 26.12.17 No 19 IT(SS)A246/Ahd/20 2014-15 Department 143(3) r.w.s. 153A 26.12.17 No 19 IT(SS)A247/Ahd/20 2015-16 Department 143(3) r.w.s. 153B 26.12.17 No 19 Shri Dilipkumar

M/S. VENUS INFRABUILD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

3) r.w.s. 153A 26.12.17 No 19 IT(SS)A244/Ahd/20 2012-13 Department 143(3) r.w.s. 153A 26.12.17 No 19 IT(SS)A245/Ahd/20 2013-14 Department 143(3) r.w.s. 153A 26.12.17 No 19 IT(SS)A246/Ahd/20 2014-15 Department 143(3) r.w.s. 153A 26.12.17 No 19 IT(SS)A247/Ahd/20 2015-16 Department 143(3) r.w.s. 153B 26.12.17 No 19 Shri Dilipkumar

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ASHOK SUNDERDAS VASWANI, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

3) r.w.s. 153A 26.12.17 No 19 IT(SS)A244/Ahd/20 2012-13 Department 143(3) r.w.s. 153A 26.12.17 No 19 IT(SS)A245/Ahd/20 2013-14 Department 143(3) r.w.s. 153A 26.12.17 No 19 IT(SS)A246/Ahd/20 2014-15 Department 143(3) r.w.s. 153A 26.12.17 No 19 IT(SS)A247/Ahd/20 2015-16 Department 143(3) r.w.s. 153B 26.12.17 No 19 Shri Dilipkumar

SHRI RAJESH SUNDERDAS VASWANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

3) r.w.s. 153A 26.12.17 No 19 IT(SS)A244/Ahd/20 2012-13 Department 143(3) r.w.s. 153A 26.12.17 No 19 IT(SS)A245/Ahd/20 2013-14 Department 143(3) r.w.s. 153A 26.12.17 No 19 IT(SS)A246/Ahd/20 2014-15 Department 143(3) r.w.s. 153A 26.12.17 No 19 IT(SS)A247/Ahd/20 2015-16 Department 143(3) r.w.s. 153B 26.12.17 No 19 Shri Dilipkumar

SHRI ASHOK SUNDERDAS VASWANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

3) r.w.s. 153A 26.12.17 No 19 IT(SS)A244/Ahd/20 2012-13 Department 143(3) r.w.s. 153A 26.12.17 No 19 IT(SS)A245/Ahd/20 2013-14 Department 143(3) r.w.s. 153A 26.12.17 No 19 IT(SS)A246/Ahd/20 2014-15 Department 143(3) r.w.s. 153A 26.12.17 No 19 IT(SS)A247/Ahd/20 2015-16 Department 143(3) r.w.s. 153B 26.12.17 No 19 Shri Dilipkumar

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI DEEPAK KUMAR VASWANI,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

3) r.w.s. 153A 26.12.17 No 19 IT(SS)A244/Ahd/20 2012-13 Department 143(3) r.w.s. 153A 26.12.17 No 19 IT(SS)A245/Ahd/20 2013-14 Department 143(3) r.w.s. 153A 26.12.17 No 19 IT(SS)A246/Ahd/20 2014-15 Department 143(3) r.w.s. 153A 26.12.17 No 19 IT(SS)A247/Ahd/20 2015-16 Department 143(3) r.w.s. 153B 26.12.17 No 19 Shri Dilipkumar

SHRI DEEPAK BUDHARMAL VASWANI,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

3) r.w.s. 153A 26.12.17 No 19 IT(SS)A244/Ahd/20 2012-13 Department 143(3) r.w.s. 153A 26.12.17 No 19 IT(SS)A245/Ahd/20 2013-14 Department 143(3) r.w.s. 153A 26.12.17 No 19 IT(SS)A246/Ahd/20 2014-15 Department 143(3) r.w.s. 153A 26.12.17 No 19 IT(SS)A247/Ahd/20 2015-16 Department 143(3) r.w.s. 153B 26.12.17 No 19 Shri Dilipkumar

M/S. VENUS INFRABUILD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

3) r.w.s. 153A 26.12.17 No 19 IT(SS)A244/Ahd/20 2012-13 Department 143(3) r.w.s. 153A 26.12.17 No 19 IT(SS)A245/Ahd/20 2013-14 Department 143(3) r.w.s. 153A 26.12.17 No 19 IT(SS)A246/Ahd/20 2014-15 Department 143(3) r.w.s. 153A 26.12.17 No 19 IT(SS)A247/Ahd/20 2015-16 Department 143(3) r.w.s. 153B 26.12.17 No 19 Shri Dilipkumar

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA vs. NEOTECH EDUCATION FOUNDATION, VADODARA

68 to 69D of the Act. As such, it is the onus of the revenue to bring out the necessary evidence to hold that the assessee has made investments in the impugned land which is unexplained under the provisions of section 69B of the Act. Likewise, the contents of the email having attachments of page 157 and 158 were

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA vs. NEOTECH EDUCATION FOUNDATION, VADODARA

68 to 69D of the Act. As such, it is the onus of the revenue to bring out the necessary evidence to hold that the assessee has made investments in the impugned land which is unexplained under the provisions of section 69B of the Act. Likewise, the contents of the email having attachments of page 157 and 158 were

SHRI PRAVINCHANDRA R PATEL,VADODARA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

68 to 69D of the Act. As such, it is the onus of the revenue to bring out the necessary evidence to hold that the assessee has made investments in the impugned land which is unexplained under the provisions of section 69B of the Act. Likewise, the contents of the email having attachments of page 157 and 158 were

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

68,995/-\nTotal Own Funds (a + b)\n19,52,09,835/-\n20,76,83,195/-\n18. It was thus urged that, in view of the availability of substantial own\nfunds and the binding judicial precedents, the disallowance sustained by\nthe CIT(A) under section 14A ought to be deleted in full.\n19. With regard to the disallowance of administrative

SMT. PARAMADEVI TEKRIWAL, ,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(5),, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. Paramadevi Tekriwal, The Income-Tax Officer, D-143, Kaliyabid, Bhavnagar Vs Ward 1(5), Pan : Addpt 3030 F Bhavnagar अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2022 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)-6, Ahmedabad (“Cit(A)” In Short) Dated 09.07.2018. 2. The Relevant Facts Of The Case Giving Rise To This Appeal Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Who Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Originally On 16.03.2014. Although The Said Return Was Originally Accepted Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short), The Assessment Was Subsequently Reopened By The Assessing Officer On The Basis Of Information Received From Investigation Wing Of The Income-Tax Department That The Long Term Capital Gains Of Rs.1,13,53,982/- Arising From The Sale Of Equity Shares Of Kgn Enterprise Ltd. For A Consideration Of Rs.1,13,87,902/- Claimed As Exempt In The Return Of Income Was Bogus & It Was Actually An Accommodation Entry. The Assessing Officer Accordingly Issued A Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act To Smt. Paramadevi Tekriwal Vs. Ito Ay : 2013-14 2

3) of the Act; and, rejecting the same, he upheld the validity of the Smt. Paramadevi Tekriwal Vs. ITO AY : 2013-14 6 said assessment made by the Assessing Officer for the following reasons given in his impugned order:- “It is seen that the AO had credible information that the KGN Enterprise Ltd. was a paper company which was involved

DCIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ALPESHKUMAR C.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1908/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive In Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. Pan: Aeapp9489G

253 ITR 454 has held that when affidavit was not controverted, it has to be taken as accepted. From the perusal of the work completion certificate, copy of work agreement furnished by the appellant, details of payment made to the sub contractor by the appellant and IDS made thereon, the argument of the appellant is partly correct though