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

68,00,000/- for different years) in the purchase of land for A.Y.2015-16. 100. At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that effective tax effect involved in this appeal is below Rs.50 Lacs, and therefore, the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable in view of recent CBDT Circular restricted the filing of the appeal by the Revenue

ACIT CC 2(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. AISHA DHIRAJ GOGIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result: 50. To summarize the final outcome:

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha["ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" एवं "ी नरे" साद िस!ा, लेखा सद" के सम#।]

68 r.w.s 115BBE on account of exempt LTCG u/s 10(38) of the Act from penny stock scrip in the shell companies.“ 37. Brief Facts : 37.1. The brief facts relevant to the issue under consideration are that the assessee declared long term capital gain during the year under consideration in respect of shares sold during the year and claimed

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-11,, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI PRATAP BHAGWANJI THAKKAR,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal ITA No

268A of the Income Tax Act, we are of the view that the present appeal of the Revenue deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. However, it is observed that in case on re-verification at the end of the AO it comes to the notice that the tax effect is more or Revenue’s case falls within

SMT. INDUMATI C. PANDEY L/H OF LATE CHANDRABHAN R. PANDEY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1),, BARODA

In the result, ITA No.2142/Ahd/2015 and CO No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

268A of the Income Tax Act, we are of the view that the present appeal of the Revenue deserves to be dismissed. It is dismissed. However, it is observed that in case on re-verification at the end of the AO it can be demonstrated that the tax effect is more, or Revenue’s case falls within the ambit

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), NOW CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. SMT. INDRAMATI C. PANDEY WIDOW & L/H OF LATE CHANDRABHAN R. PANDEY,, BARODA

In the result, ITA No.2142/Ahd/2015 and CO No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

268A of the Income Tax Act, we are of the view that the present appeal of the Revenue deserves to be dismissed. It is dismissed. However, it is observed that in case on re-verification at the end of the AO it can be demonstrated that the tax effect is more, or Revenue’s case falls within the ambit

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DUKAAS FABRICS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year: 2007-2008 Ito, Ward-1(1)(4) M/S.Dukaas Fabrics P.Ltd. Ahmedabad. Vs. 82, Soham Row House B/H. Bhavin Vidhya Vihar Thaltej Gam Ahmedabad 380 059. Pan : Aaacd 5324 K

68 of the Act. 3. The Id.counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that disputed addition in the present appeal is Rs.65,00,000/-, and therefore, Tax effect on the same is than Rs.50 lakhs. He submitted that by virtue of recent CBDT Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 8.8.2019, Department has been instructed not to file appeal before

THE ITO, WARD-4(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. LOGGUSS ENERGY LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year: 2010-2011 Ito, Ward-4(3) Logguss Energyltd. Ahmedabad. Vs. Plot No.5, Road No.1, Gidc Kathwada Ahmedabad 382 430. (Applicant) (Responent) Revenue By : Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.Dr : Shri Biren Shah, Ar Assessee By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/09/2019 आदेश/O R D E R

68 of the Act. 3. The Id.counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that disputed addition in the present appeal is Rs.1,10,00,000/- and therefore, Tax effect on the same is than Rs.50 lakhs. She filed a calculation sheet showing tax calculation of Rs.37,38,900/- He submitted that by virtue of recent CBDT Circular No.17

THE ITO, WARD-6(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI NARESH RAMSINHBHAI THAKOR,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year: 2007-2008 Ito, Ward-6(1)(3) Shri Naresh Ramsinhbhai Thakor Ahmedabad. Vs. Thakor Vas Khokhara Ahmedabad Road Ahmedabad.

68 of the Act. 3. The Id.counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that disputed addition in the present appeal is Rs.67,46,000/-, and therefore, Tax effect on the same is than Rs.50 lakhs. She filed a copy of demand notice exhibiting demand of Rs.43,96,060/- being tax requires to be paid along with interest. She submitted

THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. I.C. PANDEY AGRO PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Ito, Ward-2(1)(3) M/S.I.C. Pandey Agro Private Ltd. Ahmedabad. D/1001, Sarthak Tower Vs. Ramdevnagar Satellite, Ahmedabad Pan : Aadci 3305 G

68,000/- Surcharge (Nil being less than 1 Cr) NIL Education Cess @2% on Tax 33,360 Secondary and Higher Secondary Education 16,680 Cess @1% on Tax Total Tax 17,18,040 4. The ld.DR has not disputed applicability of above circular cited by the ld.counsel for the assessee, and has not pointed out whether the case

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NAVRATNA ORGANISERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

68 of the Income TaxACt. 3. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal of the Revenue deserves to be dismissed on account of low tax effect involved in it. He submitted that the CBDT has issued a circular bearing no.3 of 2018 dated 11.08.2018, vide which it has prohibited its authorities not to file appeal 2 before

THE DCITANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. ELECON ENGINEERING CO.LTD.,, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms. Madhumita Roysr.No.

68,929/- (Rs. 1,34,95,379/- + 61,73,550/-) has escaped assessment for A.Y. 2006-07 within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. I, therefore, issue notice u/s. 148 of the Act for A.Y. 2006-07 to the assessee after obtaining necessary approval of the higher authority. 4.1 Regarding the reason

THE DCITANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. ELECON ENGINEERING CO.LTD.,, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms. Madhumita Roysr.No.

68,929/- (Rs. 1,34,95,379/- + 61,73,550/-) has escaped assessment for A.Y. 2006-07 within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. I, therefore, issue notice u/s. 148 of the Act for A.Y. 2006-07 to the assessee after obtaining necessary approval of the higher authority. 4.1 Regarding the reason

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. NAVNIRMAN CO OP BANK LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1973/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Dcit Navnirman Co-Op. Bank Ltd. बनाम/ Circle-2(1)(1) Navnirman Bhawan V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 015 Opp. Hdfc Bank Ahmedabad City Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabfn 2975 L (अपीलाथ'/ Appellant) (!( यथ'/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hem Chhajed, Ar Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/05/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

68 of the Act., without appreciating the facts of the case?" 2. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id.CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that the assessee has transacted with Jignesh Shah and Sanjay Shah being accommodation entry providers?" 3. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD vs. NIRMA CHEMICALS WORKS PVT.LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1210/Ahd/2012 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09 ) The Asst.Commissioner Of Nirma Chemical बनाम/ Income Tax Works Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Circle-5 Nirma House, Ashram Ahmedabad Road Ahmedabad-380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn5353L .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr.Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Sr.Adv.

68,026/- u/s.36(1)(iii) of the I.T.Act. 2. The Ld.Commissioner of Income tax (A) has erred in law and on facts in restricting the disallowance of power project expenses to the extent of Rs.33,74,078/-, instead of disallowance of Rs.56,44,827/- made by the Assessing Officer. 3. The Commissioner of Income tax (A) has erred

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. BAHETI METAL & FERRO ALLOYS LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year: 2014-2015 Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1) Baheti Metal & Ferro Alloys Ltd. Ahmedabad. Vs. A-2/3, L.R. Apartment Opp: Police Commissioners Office Shahibaug, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacb 4626 L

68,104/- 3. At the outset, the Id.counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable because tax effect on the disputed addition is below Rs.50 lakhs. He submitted that by virtue of recent CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 8.8.2019, Department has been instructed not to file appeal before the Tribunal where

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. B. ZAVERI JEWELS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Cir.(1)(1)(1) B. Zaveri Jewels P.Ld. Ahmedabad. Vs. C/O. Arunbhai Soni, 1 Shikshapatri Bungalows Science City Road, Sola Ahmedabad 380 060 Pan: Aadcb 3832 B

68 of the Act an account of unexplained cash credit in the case of M/sA.A. Jewels.” 2 3. The After going through the grounds, we noticed that total addition disputed before the Tribunal is Rs.1,19,60,494/- (Rs.19,60,494/- plus Rs.1,00,00,000/-). Therefore, total tax involved would not be more than Rs.50 lakhs. Therefore, we enquired

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. AMAZON TEXTILES PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect, whereas appeal of the assessee is dismissed due to non- prosecution

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1406/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014

68,602/- i.e. (Rs.43,52,172/- minus Rs.12,87,357/-) plus Rs.23,03,787/-. By virtue of this relief, tax effect would be less than Rs.20 lakhs. Therefore, in view of the CBDT instruction bearing no.3 of 2018 dated 11.08.2018, the Revenue is prohibited from filing such appeal before the Tribunal therefore, the present appeal is not ITA No.1406

AMAZON TEXTILES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect, whereas appeal of the assessee is dismissed due to non- prosecution

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1406/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014

68,602/- i.e. (Rs.43,52,172/- minus Rs.12,87,357/-) plus Rs.23,03,787/-. By virtue of this relief, tax effect would be less than Rs.20 lakhs. Therefore, in view of the CBDT instruction bearing no.3 of 2018 dated 11.08.2018, the Revenue is prohibited from filing such appeal before the Tribunal therefore, the present appeal is not ITA No.1406