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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

68 of the Act. 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee in the present case is a Private Limited Company and engaged in the business of development of the township. The assessee during the year under consideration received a sum of Rs. 12,31,12,000/- from six NRIs as a booking advance against the sale/allotment of residential accommodation

M/S. SOFTTOUCH COSMETIC (MKTG.) PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(2),, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 68. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed against the order of High Court. 6.2 Again, the Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Thomas v, ITO [2021] 127 taxmann.com 275

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

68 of the Act. Thus the ground of appeal raised by the Assessee is hereby allowed. 29. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the addition made by the AO for ₹ 15 Lacs under the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. 30. The AO during the assessment

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

68 of the Act. Thus the ground of appeal raised by the Assessee is hereby allowed. 29. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the addition made by the AO for ₹ 15 Lacs under the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. 30. The AO during the assessment

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD), CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

68 of the Act. Thus the ground of appeal raised by the Assessee is hereby allowed. 29. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the addition made by the AO for ₹ 15 Lacs under the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. 30. The AO during the assessment

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

68 of the Act. Thus the ground of appeal raised by the Assessee is hereby allowed. 29. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the addition made by the AO for ₹ 15 Lacs under the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. 30. The AO during the assessment

MALVI AND CO.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 68 addition wherein the department head accepted repayment of loan in subsequent year to be correct. We take into account all these facts and judicial precedents to affirm CIT(A)'s findings under challenge deleting the impugned addition. This first substantive ground is accordingly declined." 10.3. In the case of DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PINAC STOCK BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri T.R Senthil Kumar

275(1A) of the Act. 4. Per contra Ld. Counsel Shri Deepak R. Shah appearing for the assessee submitted that the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat have only admitted the Questions of Law and not decided the quantum appeal. There is no stay application by the Revenue before Hon’ble High Court to stay the operation of the order

DCIT, CC-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. SHANI PRAHLADBHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby\ndismissed

Section 68 addition wherein the department\nhead accepted repayment of loan in subsequent year to be correct. We\ntake into account all these facts and judicial precedents to affirm CIT(A)'s\nfindings under challenge deleting the impugned addition. This first\nsubstantive ground is accordingly declined.\"\n\n7. 3. In the case of DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders

HARESHGIRI PRATAPGIRI GAUSHVAMI,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), BHAVNAGAR

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

section 68. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed against the order of High Court. 7.2 Again, the Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Thomas v, ITO [2021] 127 taxmann.com 275

PRAKASH GOVINDBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

section 68. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed against the order of High Court. 6. Again, the Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Thomas vs. ITO [2021] 127 taxmann.com 275

PRAKASH GOVINDBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

section 68. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed against the order of High Court. 6. Again, the Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Thomas vs. ITO [2021] 127 taxmann.com 275

PRAKASH GOVINDBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

section 68. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed against the order of High Court. 6. Again, the Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Thomas vs. ITO [2021] 127 taxmann.com 275

LOPA CHIRAG SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1800/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16)

68 amount Rs.24,50,000/- on account of unsecured loan.” 3. Briefly stated, the assessee alongwith her husband made investment in immovable property valued at Rs.2,42,05,708/- as follows: (i) Lopa C Shah Rs.40,87,880/- (ii) Chirag P Shah Rs.2,01,17,828/- In the course of the assessment proceedings, inquiry about the source of investment

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. PIYUSH SUBODHBHAI JHAVERI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of share broking and also trading in Shares & Securities in his proprietary concern M/s. Shri Parshwa Finance

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SOHAM COMMODITIES PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of share broking and also trading in Shares & Securities in his proprietary concern M/s. Shri Parshwa Finance

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. JOHN ENERGY LTD.,, MEHSANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 68 of the Act. The Assessing officer also made disallowance out of late deposit of employees’ P.F. and ESIC contribution amounting to Rs.1,75,98,275

M/S. JOHN ENERGY LTD.,,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT., MEHSANA CIRCLE,, MEHSANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 68 of the Act. The Assessing officer also made disallowance out of late deposit of employees’ P.F. and ESIC contribution amounting to Rs.1,75,98,275