PATEL WINES,KHEDA vs. THE DY.CIT, KHEDA CIRCLE, NADIAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

270A were also initiated. Patel Wines vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2017-18 - 4– 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals). In the grounds of appeal, the assessee challenged the addition made by the Assessing Officer mainly on the ground that the Assessing Officer had wrongly invoked section 68

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

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

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

8. This brings to the element of diverting the income of the trust to the\ntrustees and near relatives. Section 11 of the Act grants exemption to income\nfrom property held for charitable or religious purpose subjects to fulfilment of\ncondition contained therein. Section 13 of the Act, on the other hand, pertains\nto cases where Section

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

ACIT (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. DR K R SHROFF FOUNDATION, AHMEDABAD

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

8. This brings to the element of diverting the income of the trust to the\ntrustees and near relatives. Section 11 of the Act grants exemption to income\nfrom property held for charitable or religious purpose subjects to fulfilment of\ncondition contained therein. Section 13 of the Act, on the other hand, pertains\nto cases where Section

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

8,14,478/-, therefore as per the provisions of section 270A(7) penalty amounting to Rs. 4,07,239/- ( being 50% of tax payable on under reported income) was levied upon the assessee for assessment year 2018-19 vide penalty order dated 29-09-2023. 4. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee

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

270A and 271AAC(1) of the Act. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) condoned the delay of 183 days in filing the appeal, considering the rural nature of the assessee's operations and the impact of ex parte assessment. On merits, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the entire additions on the following reasoning

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:

270A for underreporting of income. The total assessed income was determined at Rs.9,23,22,540/-. DCIT vs. Tatva Buildcon Asst. Year : 2017-18 3 3. The assessee challenged the AO's order, submitting additional evidence during the appellate proceedings, including confirmations, ITRs, and bank statements of the lenders. The CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence under Rule

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

MR. HASMUKHLAL MAVJIBHAI THAKKAR( PROP. OF M/S. NAVKAR POTEINS),DEESA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WAD-2, PALANPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18

section 68 & 115BBE is highly unjustifiable and unlawful. 8. The Lrd. Assessing Officer has erred in law in charging interest u/s.234A-B-C-D of the Income Tax Act on the consequential demand raised in the assessment order. 9. The Lrd. Assessing Officer has erred in law in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 270A

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

8 to 11 are general for which no separate adjudication is required. I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 13 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. ITA No. 1032/Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2004-05 16. The assessee has raised following grounds

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

8 to 11 are general for which no separate adjudication is required. I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 13 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. ITA No. 1032/Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2004-05 16. The assessee has raised following grounds

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

8 to 11 are general for which no separate adjudication is required. I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 13 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. ITA No. 1032/Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2004-05 16. The assessee has raised following grounds

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

8 to 11 are general for which no separate adjudication is required. I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 13 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. ITA No. 1032/Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2004-05 16. The assessee has raised following grounds

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

8 to 11 are general for which no separate adjudication is required. I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 13 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. ITA No. 1032/Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2004-05 16. The assessee has raised following grounds

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

8 to 11 are general for which no separate adjudication is required. I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 13 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. ITA No. 1032/Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2004-05 16. The assessee has raised following grounds

GIVE FOUNDATION,BANGALORE vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the primary matter involved in all the Assessment

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68,23,652/-. 8.(a) Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in giving direction to tax income from investment under the head capital gain ignoring fact that income of the trust is required to tax by applying section 11 & 12 of the Act only. Give Foundation vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2017-18 - 3– (b) Ld. NFAC also erred

TRUSHA VRAJENDRA SANGHAVI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 5(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years:2018-19

section 270A of the Act. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal. 5. Shri. Parimalsinh B Parmar, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal