INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD , AHMEDABAD vs. SOLACE CAPITAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDBAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is also dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

272 (Bombay HC) to conclude that the amended proviso to Section 68, requiring an explanation of the "source of source

NAVRANGPURA ORGANISERS & DEV. PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

272/- was confirmed. Against this order giving effect, the assessee came up in appeal. In the appeal, it was contended by the assessee that this liability of Rs.9,06,87,708/- comprised of two amounts viz. (a) booking amount received from members of Rs.5,20,36,309/- and (b) sundry creditors of Rs.3,86,47,399/-. The ld.CIT

NAVRATNA ORGANISERS & DEV. PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENT. CIRCLE 1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

272/- was confirmed. Against this order giving effect, the assessee came up in appeal. In the appeal, it was contended by the assessee that this liability of Rs.9,06,87,708/- comprised of two amounts viz. (a) booking amount received from members of Rs.5,20,36,309/- and (b) sundry creditors of Rs.3,86,47,399/-. The ld.CIT

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

DHARMDEEP COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1) (PREVIOUSLY CIRCLE-1(1)(2)), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are as follows:- “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of ld AO of reopening the assessment

SHRI HAJI MOHMMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,BARODA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3 (1),, BARODA

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

section 68 such as proof of identity and creditworthiness as well as genuineness of transactions have not been proved. Accordingly, the addition to the extent of Rs. 10,00,000/- is confirmed as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 instead of disallowance of purchases. (xi) Jubir Husssain U.:- The appellant has shown purchases of Rs. 73,48,000/- from this

M/S. SEKHANI INDUSTRIES PVT LTD. ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANGAL COTTON MILLS PVT.LTD.),,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year:2012-13 M/S. Sekani Industries Pvt. Ltd. The Dcit, Circle-2(1)(2), (Formerly Known As Mangal Cotton Mills Vs Ahmedabad. Pvt. Ltd.), 62, New Cloth Market, Ahmedabad- 380001. Pan : Aabcm0470G (Appellant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri S. R. Shah, Ca : Shriv. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Revenue By सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21/04/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement: 29/06/2022 आदेश/O R D E R

272 (Bombay). The Hon`ble Court held that proviso to section 68 has been introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with

SHRI UMANG HIRALAL THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2150/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Dharmadev House, Income-Tax, Shyamal Cross Road, Satellite, Central Circle 1(1), Ahmedabad – 380015 Ahmedabad Pan : Aavpt 8621 R आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2548/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. 305, Sahajanand Plaza, Bhatta Income-Tax, Ch Ar Rasta, Paldi, Ahmedabad Central Circle 1(1), Pan : Aavpt 8621 R Ahmedabad अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" यथ" िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, Cit-Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained capital and unexplained cash creditors respectively, without considering the actual position that the assessee failed to prove the identity and capacity of the depositors and the genuineness of the transaction with conclusive evidences.” 6.1 The issue in above ground relates to the addition made by the Assessing Officer

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI UMANG H. THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2150/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Dharmadev House, Income-Tax, Shyamal Cross Road, Satellite, Central Circle 1(1), Ahmedabad – 380015 Ahmedabad Pan : Aavpt 8621 R आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2548/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. 305, Sahajanand Plaza, Bhatta Income-Tax, Ch Ar Rasta, Paldi, Ahmedabad Central Circle 1(1), Pan : Aavpt 8621 R Ahmedabad अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" यथ" िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, Cit-Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained capital and unexplained cash creditors respectively, without considering the actual position that the assessee failed to prove the identity and capacity of the depositors and the genuineness of the transaction with conclusive evidences.” 6.1 The issue in above ground relates to the addition made by the Assessing Officer

M/S. BODAL CHEMICALS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68 and 69C are not applicable in such circumstances. Accordingly, the disallowance deserves to be deleted. 6.3 The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the letter of CBDT dated 26.09.2018 stating the trust never had approval during the relevant period and also relied on the reply of DSIR under RTI confirming the trust was never Bodal Chemicals

AADI REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Aadi Real Estate Developers Vs. Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward 1(1)(1), 402, Sheel Complex, Mayur Ahmedabad Colony, Mithakhali, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Aajca 1796 R अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 25.05.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. The Brief Facts Relating To The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Had Filed ‘Nil’ Return Of Income For The Impugned Assessment Year, I.E. Ay 2012-13. Subsequently, On Information Received From Ddit (Inv.), Unit-1 (3), Ahmedabad, By The Assessing Officer That The Assessee Was A Beneficiary Of Accommodation Entry Taken Through Dummy Companies Run & Controlled By One Jignesh Shah, Which Information Was Revealed Consequent To Search Action Conducted On Jignesh Shah, The Case Of The Aadi Real Estate Developers Pvt Ltd Vs. Ito Ay : 2012-13 2

Section 68 of the Act. 5. Thus, as against ‘Nil” income returned by the assessee/loss returned of (-) Rs.28,260/-, additions of Rs.4,73,20,000/- and Rs.7,38,65,000/- were made to the income of the assessee resulting in the income being assessed to the tune of Rs.12,11,56,740/-. 6. The matter was carried in appeal

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. PANKAJ COTTON INDUSTRIES, PATAN

section 68 addition of Rs. 32385600/- to the tune of Rs. 449304/- only as under: “In ground no.5 the appellant has disputed the addition of Rs.3,23,85,600 being unexplained cash credit. Perusal of para 4 of the assessment order shows that the Assessing Officer made verification of bank accounts and added back all cash deposits appearing

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,670) in CENVAT credit. AO further found that ''closing stock” ought to have been valued as per ''Inclusive method" which was admittedly not done since assessee had followed “Exclusive method". Thus, AO took a view that if "closing stock” is valued as per "Inclusive method", value of "closing stock" is to ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,670) in CENVAT credit. AO further found that ''closing stock” ought to have been valued as per ''Inclusive method" which was admittedly not done since assessee had followed “Exclusive method". Thus, AO took a view that if "closing stock” is valued as per "Inclusive method", value of "closing stock" is to ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,670) in CENVAT credit. AO further found that ''closing stock” ought to have been valued as per ''Inclusive method" which was admittedly not done since assessee had followed “Exclusive method". Thus, AO took a view that if "closing stock” is valued as per "Inclusive method", value of "closing stock" is to ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,670) in CENVAT credit. AO further found that ''closing stock” ought to have been valued as per ''Inclusive method" which was admittedly not done since assessee had followed “Exclusive method". Thus, AO took a view that if "closing stock” is valued as per "Inclusive method", value of "closing stock" is to ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,670) in CENVAT credit. AO further found that ''closing stock” ought to have been valued as per ''Inclusive method" which was admittedly not done since assessee had followed “Exclusive method". Thus, AO took a view that if "closing stock” is valued as per "Inclusive method", value of "closing stock" is to ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,670) in CENVAT credit. AO further found that ''closing stock” ought to have been valued as per ''Inclusive method" which was admittedly not done since assessee had followed “Exclusive method". Thus, AO took a view that if "closing stock” is valued as per "Inclusive method", value of "closing stock" is to ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(OSD),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,670) in CENVAT credit. AO further found that ''closing stock” ought to have been valued as per ''Inclusive method" which was admittedly not done since assessee had followed “Exclusive method". Thus, AO took a view that if "closing stock” is valued as per "Inclusive method", value of "closing stock" is to ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International