NARANBHAI SAMATBHAI BHARWAD THROUGH LEGAL HEIR DEVRAJBHAI NARANBHAI BHARWAD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Tr Senthil Kumar

68 section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income tax payable shall be the aggregate of- (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent

PARK PARADISE,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member\nAnd Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nITA Nos.207 & 208/Ahd/2022\nAssessment Year 2017-18\nPark Plaza\nNr. Saurabh Park,\nGotri-Samata, Road,\nGotri Vadodara\nGujarat-390021\nPAN: AAPFP6647K\nVs\nThe PCIT,\nVadodara-1,\nVadodara\nPark Paradise\nPlot No. 75,\nNr. Billa Bong School,\nVadsar, Vadodara\nGujarat-390010\nPAN: AASFP0787D\n(Appellant)\nVs\nThe PCIT,\nVadodara-1,\nVadodara\n(Respondent)\nAssessee Represented: Shri M.J. Shah, Adv. &\nS

68 section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D,\nif such income is not covered under clause (a), the income tax payable\nshall be the aggregate of-\n(i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in\nclause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty

PARK PLAZA,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member\nAnd Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\n\nITA Nos.207 & 208/Ahd/2022\nAssessment Year 2017-18\n\n| Park Plaza\n| Nr. Saurabh Park,\n| Gotri-Samata, Road,\n| Gotri Vadodara\n| Gujarat-390021\n| PAN: AAPFP6647K\n| Park Paradise\n| Plot No. 75,\n| Nr. Billa Bong School,\n| Vadsar, Vadodara\n| Gujarat-390010\n| PAN: AASFP0787D\n| (Appellant)\n\n| The PCIT,\n| Vadodara-1,\nVs Vadodara\n\n| Vs The PCIT,\n| Vadodara-1,\n| Vadodara\n| (Respondent)\n\nA

68 section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D,\nif such income is not covered under clause (a), the income tax payable\nshall be the aggregate of-\n(i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in\nclause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty

SAVLI TALUKA SECONDARY AND HIGHER SECONDARY EMPLOYEES CO OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1772/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-20 Savli Taluka Secondary & The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Higher Secondary Employees Ward-1(2)(2) V/S. Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd. Vadodara – 390 007 18, Rayakaka Park Savli Desar Road Vadodara – 391 770. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aafas 6647 D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket Bakshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm:

68 of the Act without considering the fact that the amount deposited to the bank account were the recovery of loans which were extended to the members of the society in the earlier years. 7. The learned CIT(A) and the learned AO erred in fact and in law in making the order without giving a proper opportunity of being

SANDEEP MOHANRAJ SINGHI,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE4(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

68 of I.T. Act, 1961, is not sustainable….” 11. The Revenue has been unable to controvert the findings of Ld. CIT(A) regarding the source of funds utilised by Arrow for acquisition of shares of the assessee trust. The assessee had not only established the genuineness of the transactions but also brought on record evidences to establish the creditworthiness

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD vs. TATVA BUILDCON, BHAIRAVNATH ROAD, MANINAGAR

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1726/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Dcit-2(1)(1) Tatva Buildcon बनाम/ Ahmedabad 1, Vraj Vihar Apartment, V/S. 2, Gopal Baug Society Bhairavnath Road Maninagar Ahmedabad – 380 008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaift 8076 F अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chirag R. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

68 of the Act due to non-submission of sufficient documentary evidence. The assessee claimed an interest expenditure of Rs.62,82,725/- on unsecured loans. Since the AO treated Rs.8,32,37,894/- of the loans as unexplained, he proportionately disallowed the corresponding interest of Rs.51,64,842/-. The AO invoked Section 115BBE, taxing the unexplained credit

MILACRON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2021-22 Milacron India Pvt.Ltd. The Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Plot No.93/2 & 91/4 Vs Ahmedabad. Phase-1,Gidc Vatva, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabcc 0881 D

68,90,80,010/-. The return was selected for scrutiny under CASS for international transactions involving intangible property, and the case was also flagged under the Transfer Pricing (TP) risk parameter. 3. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) made a reference under section 92CA(1) of the Act to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination

ITO MEHSANA WARD 5 KADI, KADI vs. THE GOZARIA PEOPLES CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, GOZARIA

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 Ito, Mehsana Ward-5 The Gozaria Peoples Co-Operative Kadi. Vs Credit Society Ltd. 2, Main Bazar At Gozariya Ta. Mehsana 383 825 Gujarat. Pan : Aaajt 1283 G (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri B.K. Patel, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Durga Dutt, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B on 12.09.2022 and made the following additions: • Rs.15,14,46,954/- on account of unverified current liabilities u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE • Rs.40,00,000/- disallowed as personal expenditure • Rs.19,39,776/- added as unexplained increase in loans/advances u/s 68 • Rs.70,000/- disallowed u/s 40A(7) on account of gratuity provision • Rs.89,91,830/- disallowed

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act, the assessee was unable to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors and failed to discharge the initial onus cast upon him. From the above facts of the case, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) has not erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty levied

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act, the assessee was unable to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors and failed to discharge the initial onus cast upon him. From the above facts of the case, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) has not erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty levied

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act, the assessee was unable to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors and failed to discharge the initial onus cast upon him. From the above facts of the case, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) has not erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty levied

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act, the assessee was unable to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors and failed to discharge the initial onus cast upon him. From the above facts of the case, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) has not erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty levied

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act, the assessee was unable to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors and failed to discharge the initial onus cast upon him. From the above facts of the case, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) has not erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty levied

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act, the assessee was unable to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors and failed to discharge the initial onus cast upon him. From the above facts of the case, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) has not erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty levied

MEGHAL RAJESHKUMAR THAKOR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2018-19

section 270A has not produced any application before the Assessing Officer related to the immunity application in Form 68

ALTERA DIGITAL HEALTH (INDIA) LLP (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ALLSCRIPTS (INDIA) LLP),VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground Number 11 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

270A of the Act The above grounds are independent of and without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the appeal hearing so as to enable

HARISHCHANDRASINH PRATAPSINH PARMAR,PANCHMAHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, GODHRA, WARD GODHRA

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68 and 69A of the Act. The Assessing Officer held that since the assessee had not produced any books of account or evidence to justify the substantial cash deposits, the unexplained portion amounting to Rs. 2,07,56,750/- was liable to be treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and the same was added

D S TRADING,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

270A of the Act.” 3. The assessee-company is a partnership firm engaged in the business of trading of Raw Cashew Nuts. The assessee filed the return of income on 15.02.2022 declaring a business loss of Rs. 1,77,96,363/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). During