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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

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 of Clause (B) to Explanation 1 of Section

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

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 of Clause (B) to Explanation 1 of Section

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

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 of Clause (B) to Explanation 1 of Section

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

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 of Clause (B) to Explanation 1 of Section

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

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 of Clause (B) to Explanation 1 of Section

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

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 of Clause (B) to Explanation 1 of Section

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

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 of Clause (B) to Explanation 1 of Section

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

E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 18.09.2025 passed for A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “Invalid

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

E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against order dated 27.01.2024 passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1 The order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is against law, equity and justice. 2

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

2. The Lrd. Commissioner of Income Tax (E-Appeals) has erred in law in passing the appeal order confirming the action of Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, whereby confirmed the addition of Rs.1,26,08,950/- made on account of cash deposited in the bank account maintained with HDFC Bank under the IT Act. 3. The Lrd. Commissioner of Income

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

E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 29.06.2025 passed for A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal

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

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

2. In the facts of the present case, Ld. AO was not justified in reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in confirming the addition of Rs.51,50,000/- made by Ld. AO in respect of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of property

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:

E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 18/06/2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds appeal: Mayur Jagdishbhai Thakkar