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

section 68 in respect of such loan amount was justified. In the result, we are of the view that ld. CIT(A) has not erred in law and on facts of the case in sustaining addition made by the ld. CIT(A) to the extent of Rs. 5 lakhs u/s. 68 of the Act. 10. In the result

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

section 68 in respect of such loan amount was justified. In the result, we are of the view that ld. CIT(A) has not erred in law and on facts of the case in sustaining addition made by the ld. CIT(A) to the extent of Rs. 5 lakhs u/s. 68 of the Act. 10. In the result

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

section 68 in respect of such loan amount was justified. In the result, we are of the view that ld. CIT(A) has not erred in law and on facts of the case in sustaining addition made by the ld. CIT(A) to the extent of Rs. 5 lakhs u/s. 68 of the Act. 10. In the result

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

section 68 in respect of such loan amount was justified. In the result, we are of the view that ld. CIT(A) has not erred in law and on facts of the case in sustaining addition made by the ld. CIT(A) to the extent of Rs. 5 lakhs u/s. 68 of the Act. 10. In the result

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

section 68 in respect of such loan amount was justified. In the result, we are of the view that ld. CIT(A) has not erred in law and on facts of the case in sustaining addition made by the ld. CIT(A) to the extent of Rs. 5 lakhs u/s. 68 of the Act. 10. In the result

AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,860/- to the total income of the assessee on a protective basis as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 6. Further, since the assessee had neither filed her return of income under section 139(1) within the prescribed time nor in response to notice under section 153C, penalty proceedings under section 271F were

AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,860/- to the total income of the assessee on a protective basis as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 6. Further, since the assessee had neither filed her return of income under section 139(1) within the prescribed time nor in response to notice under section 153C, penalty proceedings under section 271F were

AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,860/- to the total income of the assessee on a protective basis as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 6. Further, since the assessee had neither filed her return of income under section 139(1) within the prescribed time nor in response to notice under section 153C, penalty proceedings under section 271F were

SHRI VISHAL MOHANLAL TILVA,BARODA vs. THE ADDL.CIT, CENTRAL RANGE, BARODA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarsr.

68 of the Act. Only the reason for the Revenue was that the receipt of the loan was in cash, which was in violation of section 269SS of the Act. Thus, the Revenue authorities imposed penalty, as if the provision of section 271D is mandatory, without considering the ‘reasonable cause’ explained by the assessee both during the penalty

SHRI MOHANLAL SAVJIBHAI TILVA,BARODA vs. THE ADDL.CIT, CENTRAL RANGE, BARODA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarsr.

68 of the Act. Only the reason for the Revenue was that the receipt of the loan was in cash, which was in violation of section 269SS of the Act. Thus, the Revenue authorities imposed penalty, as if the provision of section 271D is mandatory, without considering the ‘reasonable cause’ explained by the assessee both during the penalty

SHRI MOHANLAL SAVJIBHAI TILVA,BARODA vs. THE ADDL.CIT, CENTRAL RANGE, BARODA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarsr.

68 of the Act. Only the reason for the Revenue was that the receipt of the loan was in cash, which was in violation of section 269SS of the Act. Thus, the Revenue authorities imposed penalty, as if the provision of section 271D is mandatory, without considering the ‘reasonable cause’ explained by the assessee both during the penalty

SHRI VISHAL MOHANLAL TILVA,BARODA vs. THE ADDL.CIT, CENTRAL RANGE, BARODA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarsr.

68 of the Act. Only the reason for the Revenue was that the receipt of the loan was in cash, which was in violation of section 269SS of the Act. Thus, the Revenue authorities imposed penalty, as if the provision of section 271D is mandatory, without considering the ‘reasonable cause’ explained by the assessee both during the penalty

THE ITO, WARD 8(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. VARIJ BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed; whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms.Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Memeber & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2008-09 Varij Builders P.Ltd. Ito, Ward-8(4) 2, Sejal House Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Maninagar Railway Station Maninagar Ahmedabad 380 008. Pan : Aaccv5656Q Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-8(4) Varij Builders P.Ltd. Ahmedabad. Vs 2, Sejal House Nr. Maninagar Railway Station Maninagar Ahmedabad 380 008 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms.Nupur Shah, Ar & Shri Dhiren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rameshkumar L. Sadhu, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: These Are Cross Appeals One Filed By The Assessee In Ita No.1915/Ahd/2013 & Another Filed By The Revenue In Ita No.2008/Ahd/2013 Against Order Dated 9.5.2013 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xiv, Ahmedabad [In Short Referred As “Ld.Cit(A)”] Relating To The Assessment Year 2008-09. Ita No.1915 & 2008/Ahd/2013 2 2. Original Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Unexplained Cash Credit U/S.68 Of The Act Of Rs.92,00,000/- On Account Of Share Application Money Received In Cash.

68 of the Act. The AO also initiated penalty under sections 271(1)(c) and 271E of the Act. 4. Aggrieved

VARIJ BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,. WARD-8(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed; whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms.Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Memeber & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2008-09 Varij Builders P.Ltd. Ito, Ward-8(4) 2, Sejal House Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Maninagar Railway Station Maninagar Ahmedabad 380 008. Pan : Aaccv5656Q Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-8(4) Varij Builders P.Ltd. Ahmedabad. Vs 2, Sejal House Nr. Maninagar Railway Station Maninagar Ahmedabad 380 008 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms.Nupur Shah, Ar & Shri Dhiren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rameshkumar L. Sadhu, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: These Are Cross Appeals One Filed By The Assessee In Ita No.1915/Ahd/2013 & Another Filed By The Revenue In Ita No.2008/Ahd/2013 Against Order Dated 9.5.2013 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xiv, Ahmedabad [In Short Referred As “Ld.Cit(A)”] Relating To The Assessment Year 2008-09. Ita No.1915 & 2008/Ahd/2013 2 2. Original Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Unexplained Cash Credit U/S.68 Of The Act Of Rs.92,00,000/- On Account Of Share Application Money Received In Cash.

68 of the Act. The AO also initiated penalty under sections 271(1)(c) and 271E of the Act. 4. Aggrieved