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

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

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

5. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the learned CIT(A) challenging the validity of the said assessment as well as disputing the addition made therein under Section 68 of the Act by treating the sale consideration of equity

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

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

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

68,995/-\nTotal Own Funds (a + b)\n19,52,09,835/-\n20,76,83,195/-\n18.\nIt 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.\nWith regard to the disallowance of administrative

THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VADODARA vs. PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD., VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

68,995/-\nTotal Own Funds (a + b)\n19,52,09,835/-\n20,76,83,195/-\n18.\nIt 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.\nWith regard to the disallowance of administrative

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

5. The learned CIT(A) after considering the facts in totality confirmed the order of the AO by observing as under: “It is a settled position of taw that section 68 of the Act puts onus of proof on the taxpayer. If an amount has been credited in the books of the appellant, the onus is on the taxpayer

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form

JT.CIT(E), CIRCLE-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form

JT.CIT(EXEMPTION)CIRCL-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form

JT.CIT(E),CIRCLE -2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form

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

WELSPUN PROJECTS LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS MSK PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.),BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), BARODA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1864/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Welspun Projects (Formerly Known Ito, Ward-4(1) As Msk Projects (India) Ltd. Vs Baroda. 707-708, Sterling Centre R.C.Dutt Road, Alkapuri Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aabcm 4107 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi With Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, Dr

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross-objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression “sufficient cause” employed in the section has also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section

WELSPUN PROJECTS LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS MSK PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.),BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, RANGE-4,, BARODA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1864/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Welspun Projects (Formerly Known Ito, Ward-4(1) As Msk Projects (India) Ltd. Vs Baroda. 707-708, Sterling Centre R.C.Dutt Road, Alkapuri Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aabcm 4107 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi With Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, Dr

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross-objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression “sufficient cause” employed in the section has also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section

DR K R SHROFF FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXMP, AHMEDABAD

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

68 of I.T. Act, 1961, is not sustainable....”\n\n11.\nThe 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