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

d) Disallowance u/s 40(a) Rs.4,18,631/- (e) Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.8,74,323/- (f) Interest on diversion of funds Rs.10,95,150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

d) Disallowance u/s 40(a) Rs.4,18,631/- (e) Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.8,74,323/- (f) Interest on diversion of funds Rs.10,95,150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

d) Disallowance u/s 40(a) Rs.4,18,631/- (e) Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.8,74,323/- (f) Interest on diversion of funds Rs.10,95,150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

d) Disallowance u/s 40(a) Rs.4,18,631/- (e) Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.8,74,323/- (f) Interest on diversion of funds Rs.10,95,150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

d) Disallowance u/s 40(a) Rs.4,18,631/- (e) Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.8,74,323/- (f) Interest on diversion of funds Rs.10,95,150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

d) Disallowance u/s 40(a) Rs.4,18,631/- (e) Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.8,74,323/- (f) Interest on diversion of funds Rs.10,95,150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

d) Disallowance u/s 40(a) Rs.4,18,631/- (e) Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.8,74,323/- (f) Interest on diversion of funds Rs.10,95,150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

d) Disallowance u/s 40(a) Rs.4,18,631/- (e) Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.8,74,323/- (f) Interest on diversion of funds Rs.10,95,150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms

SHAILESHKUMAR DAHYABHAI PATEL,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(2) (NOW DCIT CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, GUJARAT, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, Ground Number 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

272A(1)(b) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals). With respect to the addition of ₹60,50,000/- under section 68 of the Act, the assessee contended that all loans were received through banking channels and that confirmations, PAN and bank statements had been furnished

ARVIND AMBALAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1) (OLD WARD-5(2)(2)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2017-18

272A(1)(d) of the act also issued. The details were furrnished on 18.11.2019 after issuing of two show cause notices. The Assessing Officer observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee’s status is an individual and he is proprietor of M/s. Gold Roof. The assessee is doing business activities i.e. trading of Gold, Gold Jewellery, Silver, Silvera

BANK OF BARODA,ANAND vs. THE ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

68,730/- (late filing levy of " 48,400 u/s 234E of the Act @ " 200 per day delay for 242 days delay in filing of Form no. 26Q (TDS return) and interest of " 20,328/- u/s 220(2) of the Act). The assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals) against late filing levy u/s 234E of the Act. The main

PARSHOTTAMBHAI SHAMJIBHAI GAJJAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Parshottambhgai Shamjibhai Gajjar The Ito, Ward-4(2)(4) 75, Shastrinagar Vs. Now Ward-4(2)(3) Nr. Anandbaug Society Ahmedabad. Ghatlodia Ahmedabad. Pan : Bhtpg 0081 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jaimin Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am:

68,450/- and agricultural income of Rs.2,22,530/-The return was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the reason of “Large Cash Deposit during demonetization period.” Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 24.09.2018, followed by notices under section 142(1) on multiple dates including 28.05.2019, 05.08.2019 and 31.08.2019. The assessee failed

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

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 & 272A(1)(d

BHARATBHAI RAGHAVBHAI JOGRANA,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

272A(1)(d), and 271F for non-compliance and failure to file the return of income. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). However, throughout the appellate proceedings, the assessee did not respond to any of the five hearing notices issued by Ld. CIT(A) between 2021 and 2024. Observing complete

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

272A(1)(d) of the Act. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming action of initiation of penalty proceedings under 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

SHRI NAGJIBHAI KUBERBHAI KHENI,BHAVNAGAR vs. ASST UNIT , I TAX DEPT. ( INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(9) BHAVANAGAR ), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2020-21. I.T.A No. 862/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2020-21 Page No 2 Shri Nagjibhai Keberbhai Kheni vs. ITO 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual and Senior Citizen, engaged in agricultural activities along

MAYUR JAGDISHBHAI THAKKAR,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1314/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-20 Mayur Jagdishbhai Thakkar The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Meldima Vali Street Ward-1(8) V/S. Near Hira Sheri Bhavnagar – 364 001 Kharakuva, Bhavnagar Gujarat – 364 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Ajipt 3961 E (अपीलाथ)/ Appellant) (*+ यथ)/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

68 of the Act. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the Ld. AO in invoking provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act. 7. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations