RICH PAINTS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(2),, BARODA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 186/Ahd/2015 1995-96 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H 2. 187/Ahd/2015 1996-97 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H 3. 188/Ahd/2015 1997-98 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H

Section AY: 1995-96 to 1997-98 143(3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). ITA No. 186/Ahd/2015 (A.Y. 1995-96):- 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law in confirming the action of AO in reopening the assessment proceedings

RICH PAINTS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(2),, BARODA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 186/Ahd/2015 1995-96 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H 2. 187/Ahd/2015 1996-97 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H 3. 188/Ahd/2015 1997-98 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H

Section AY: 1995-96 to 1997-98 143(3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). ITA No. 186/Ahd/2015 (A.Y. 1995-96):- 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law in confirming the action of AO in reopening the assessment proceedings

RICH PAINTS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(2),, BARODA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 186/Ahd/2015 1995-96 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H 2. 187/Ahd/2015 1996-97 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H 3. 188/Ahd/2015 1997-98 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H

Section AY: 1995-96 to 1997-98 143(3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). ITA No. 186/Ahd/2015 (A.Y. 1995-96):- 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law in confirming the action of AO in reopening the assessment proceedings

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI RAMESH GOBARJI THAKOR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer Vs. Shri Ramesh Gobarji Thakor Ward-3 Sector 11 Gandhinagar. Gandhinagar. Pan : Aespt 3446 H (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/07/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. If on verification, it was bund that those lenders did not disclose in their income tax return the transaction or that they had not disclosed the aforesaid amount, the Assessing Officer could call for further explanation the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transaction or creditworthiness of the same. 12 However

POOJA TYRE MARKETING,HIMATNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, S.K. WARD-3, HIMATNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.253/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Pooja Tyre Marketing, Income Tax Officer, Aakar Complex, S.K Ward 3, Vs. Himatnagar. Opp. Vyapar Bhawan, Himatnagar-383 001. Pan: Aabfa9200G

254 wherein it was held as under: “While section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act limits the onus of the assessee to extent to his proving the source from where he has received the cash credit, section 68

NAVRATNA ORGANISERS & DEV. PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENT. CIRCLE 1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

254. 7. Sole issue involved in this appeal is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.14,95,000/- which was added by the AO with the aid of section 68

NAVRANGPURA ORGANISERS & DEV. PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

254. 7. Sole issue involved in this appeal is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.14,95,000/- which was added by the AO with the aid of section 68

MINOR HARESH KARSANBHAI PATEL ORAL SPECIFIC DEFERRED FAMILY TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(2) NOW WARD- 5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 863/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 1982-1983 Minor Haresh Karsanbhai Patel Oral Income Tax Officer, Specific Deferred Family Trust, Vs. Ward-5(2)(2), Nirma House, Ahmedabad. Near Income Tax Circle, Now Ashram Road, Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad-380009. Ward 5(3)(1), Ahmedabad Pan: Aaath4880P

254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264, wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, the assessee shall be entitled to receive, in addition to the interest payable under sub-section (1), an additional interest on such amount of refund calculated at the rate

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

THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), SHRI SIDDHATHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

68,15,907/- under normal provisions and determining book profit of Rs 160,04,09,477/- u/s. 115JB. 2. On perusal of records, it is noticed that rectification order passed in the case of assessee company on 05/07/2017 wherein credit of DDT of Rs.9,53,58,500/- paid by the assessee was allowed against DDT demand payable

SMT. PARULBEN RAJUBHAI TRIVEDI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1308/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14)

254 (Guwahati) and long line of other judicial precedents which holds that no obligation is cast upon the assessee to prove the ‘source of source’ of funds received by the lender per se prior to its lending to the assessee. The action of the AO in not making cross inquiry is thus not fatal per se to hold the order

SHRI ARVINDBHAI POPATLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Memebr

254/- Rs.77,230/- Rs.24,32,658/- 621/3 Index of 2010-11 : 711 Index of 1999 : 389 In view of the above, an amount of Rs. 24,32,658/- is considered as long term capital gain from the sale of above mentioned land.” 4.3 Likewise, the AO also found that the Assistant Valuation Officer of the Income Tax Department has considered

THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(4), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. MANAN MOTORS PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

254/-. The Assessing Officer made assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 thereby making addition of Rs.1,72,68

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. TEXRAJ REALTY PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09

68 of the Act related to unsecured loan. The Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) without taking cognizance of the observations of the Assessing Officer and simplicitor deleted the said addition. 6. Ld AR relied upon the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that relevant evidences related to creditworthiness and genuineness of the parties were produced

HARGOVIND MOTIBHAI DESAI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 3(3)(7), AHMEDABAD (EXISTING ITO WARD 3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD), VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 68 of the Act and therefore the learned AO should be directed to delete the said addition while computing the total income. 3. That the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in law and facts by treating rent income of Rs. 6,60,000/- as income from other sources, out of offered business income and against

HARGOVIND MOTIBHAI DESAI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 3(3)(8), AHMEDABAD (EXISTING ITO WARD 3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 68 of the Act and therefore the learned AO should be directed to delete the said addition while computing the total income. 3. That the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in law and facts by treating rent income of Rs. 6,60,000/- as income from other sources, out of offered business income and against

M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

section 92B does not enlarge the scope of the term 'international transaction' to include the Corporate Guarantee in the nature provided by the assessee therein. The Tribunal held that in case of default, Guarantor has to fulfil the liability and therefore, there is always an inherent risk in providing guarantees and that may be a reason that Finance provider

JT. CTI (OSD), CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

section 92B does not enlarge the scope of the term 'international transaction' to include the Corporate Guarantee in the nature provided by the assessee therein. The Tribunal held that in case of default, Guarantor has to fulfil the liability and therefore, there is always an inherent risk in providing guarantees and that may be a reason that Finance provider