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

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

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

264 ITR 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

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. M/S. AARTI CATALYST SOLUTION PVT. LTD, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the Act and new proviso introduced w.e.f. 1-4-2013. This provision is made in relation to share application money, share capital, share premium or any such amount by whatever name called, whereas in the assessee’s case it is an unsecured loan obtained by the assessee for 6 its business purposes. Thus, the ld.AO erred

CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SUNIT SUDHIRBHAI CHOKSHI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) On The Quantum Addition, Wherein Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Addition To Rs.4,71,46,684/- Only. Thus The Assessing Officer Levied Penalty Of Rs.2,80,88,610/- Being 60% Of Addition Confirmed By Ld. Cit(A) U/S. 271Aab Of The Act.

68,140/- as against the total addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.28.37 crores. The summary of additions/disallowances confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) and the Hon’ble ITAT are as follows: Sr. No Particulars Amount as per Amount Amount confirmed/ assessment order confirmed/upheld upheld by ITAT by CIT(A) 1. Addition on account

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) , AHMEDABAD vs. SUNIT SUDHIRBHAI CHOKSHI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) On The Quantum Addition, Wherein Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Addition To Rs.4,71,46,684/- Only. Thus The Assessing Officer Levied Penalty Of Rs.2,80,88,610/- Being 60% Of Addition Confirmed By Ld. Cit(A) U/S. 271Aab Of The Act.

68,140/- as against the total addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.28.37 crores. The summary of additions/disallowances confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) and the Hon’ble ITAT are as follows: Sr. No Particulars Amount as per Amount Amount confirmed/ assessment order confirmed/upheld upheld by ITAT by CIT(A) 1. Addition on account

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

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

68,328/- 9. However, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the contention of the assessee by observing as under: The appellant's submissions have been duly considered. It may however be noted that as per the wording and provisions of Section 244A, interest is to be computed upto date of grant of refund, and not date of issue of refund

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)

264 ITR 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

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

section 143(3) of the Act. 16.9 On perusal of the ledgers of the laborers we note that the payment was made by the assessee periodically after the deduction of TDS. Thus, the assessee cannot be penalized if the laborers have raised the bills at the end of the accounting year. 16.10 We also note that the assessee

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

section 143(3) of the Act. 16.9 On perusal of the ledgers of the laborers we note that the payment was made by the assessee periodically after the deduction of TDS. Thus, the assessee cannot be penalized if the laborers have raised the bills at the end of the accounting year. 16.10 We also note that the assessee

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI RAJENDRA J KESHWANI (HUF), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.30/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Dcit Shri Rajendra J. Keshwani बनाम/ Central Circle-1(1) (Huf) V/S. Ahmedabad-380 009 44, Asopalav Bungalows Nr.Muktidham Jain Temple Thaltej, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaehk 1973 J अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

Section 68 unless there is specific material to prove that the transaction is a sham. Furthermore, the Co-ordinate bench, in the case of Denisha Rajendra Keshwani (ITA No. 39/Ahd/2021), dismissed the Revenue’s appeal in a case with identical facts, holding that the assessee had duly discharged the onus by providing all necessary documents, while the Revenue failed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SMT. DENISHA RAJENDRA KESHWANI, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.39/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Dcit Smt. Denisha Rajendra बनाम/ Central Circle-1(1) Keshwani V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 009 44, Asopalav Bungalows Nr.Muktidham Temple Thaltej, Ahmedabad – 380 054 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Ahzpk 0889 K (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 22.01.2021, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Wherein The Cit(A) Has Deleted The Addition Of Rs.1,17,78,534/- Made Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 1(1), Dcit Vs. Smt. Denisha Rajendra Keshwani Asst. Year : 2015-16

section 68 of the Act despite the fact that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction? 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer has categorically established the LTCG on sale of shares of Kappac Pharma Ltd was non-genuine

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

68,54,411. An Explanation below section 8oIA has been inserted by Finance(No.2) Act, 2009 w.r.e.f 01.04.2000 that "nothing contained in this section 8oIA shall apply in relation to business referred to in sub-section (4) which is in the nature of a works contract awarded by any person including the Central or State Government

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

68,54,411. An Explanation below section 8oIA has been inserted by Finance(No.2) Act, 2009 w.r.e.f 01.04.2000 that "nothing contained in this section 8oIA shall apply in relation to business referred to in sub-section (4) which is in the nature of a works contract awarded by any person including the Central or State Government

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

SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. INDUMATIBEN RUGNATH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

68, but same could not be taxed under section 41(1), inasmuch as if liability itself was not genuine, question of remission or cessation thereof would not arise.” 27.2. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record. It is an undisputed fact that this unsecured loan is reflecting in the balance sheet

SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

68, but same could not be taxed under section 41(1), inasmuch as if liability itself was not genuine, question of remission or cessation thereof would not arise.” 27.2. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record. It is an undisputed fact that this unsecured loan is reflecting in the balance sheet