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

68 of the Income Tax Act contemplates that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof, or the explanation offered by the assessee is not, in the opinion of the AO satisfactory, then the sum so credited

ITO MEHSANA WARD 5 KADI, KADI vs. THE GOZARIA PEOPLES CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, GOZARIA

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 Ito, Mehsana Ward-5 The Gozaria Peoples Co-Operative Kadi. Vs Credit Society Ltd. 2, Main Bazar At Gozariya Ta. Mehsana 383 825 Gujarat. Pan : Aaajt 1283 G (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri B.K. Patel, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Durga Dutt, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

68. Respectfully following the said decision and in the absence of any fresh evidence brought by the Revenue, we uphold the CIT(A)’s deletion. Ground (c) is dismissed. 16. Ground (d): Disallowance of Rs.70,000/- u/s 40A(7) 17. The AO disallowed Rs.70,000/- under section 40A(7) on the ground that it was not reported

RAJENDRA HARJIVANDAS PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

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

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

section 54EC(1), as follows: Sr. Survey/ Assessee Share Advance Investment in Date of No Block No of (Rs.) Amount REC Bonds Investment Received 1. Survey 2,32,56,773 70,00,000 50,00,000 31.03.2020 No.502/2 1a. 1,62,56,773 44,90,000 21.07.2010 2. Survey 5,68,76,282

THE ACIT. CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDBAD vs. RAJENDRA HARJIVANDAS PRAJAPATI, AHMEDBAD

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

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

section 54EC(1), as follows: Sr. Survey/ Assessee Share Advance Investment in Date of No Block No of (Rs.) Amount REC Bonds Investment Received 1. Survey 2,32,56,773 70,00,000 50,00,000 31.03.2020 No.502/2 1a. 1,62,56,773 44,90,000 21.07.2010 2. Survey 5,68,76,282

PHARMANZA HERBAL PRIVATE LIMITED,DHARMAJ vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VADODARA-1, VAODARA

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

282 (SC) and NDTV v. ACIT, Civil Appeal No. 1008 of 2020. The Pr. CIT rejected the assessee’s contentions, holding that after the Finance Act, 2015 amendment effective from 01.04.2016, both section 35(2AB) and Rule 6(7A) explicitly required quantification of eligible R&D expenditure by the DSIR in Form 3CL. Hence, there was no scope

ROHIT PRAKASHCHANDRA SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2014-15

282 (Guj.). The Ld. AR further submitted that the Assessing Officer cannot record only some of the reasons and keep back the others to be disclosed before the Court if the action is challenged in court of law, for which reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Kantibhai D. Narola, 436 ITR 302 (Guj.). He further submitted

SHRI MOHANLAL SONDABHAI SOLANKI,,MAHUVA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6,, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, ground no.8 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year: 1998-99

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have been submitted by the assessee. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition in the hands of the assessee. 7. On going through the facts of the instant case, we are of the considered view that the CIT(A), after taking into consideration all the aspects of the matter

SHRI HARESHBHAI M. SHAH,,VADODARA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1222/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Hareshbhai M. Shah, A.C.I.T., A/20 Suklanagar, Vs. Circle-1(2), B/H Prabhar Society, Vadodra. Waghodia Raod, Vadodra.

68 of the Act. Page 4 of 14 Asstt. Years 2010-11 5 Regarding the unsecured loan of Rs. 132.26 lacs 2.10 The AO in the scrutiny proceedings of KIT Pvt Ltd noted that the assessee, in the capacity of director, provided unsecured loans to the company amounting to Rs. 75.26 Lakhs during the year. Similarly another director Smt. Margi

THE ITO, WARD-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI POWER RAJASTHAN LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, cross objection of the assessee on this score stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1430/Ahd/2015 With Cross Objection No. 114/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

Section 57(iii). In this regard, it is seen that the said amount of interest income admitted in the Return of Income of Rs. 2,59,19,961 comprises of Rs. 17,63,014 being the interest earned on inter-corporate deposits out of unutilized funds in the form of equity share capital and Rs. 1,317 being other

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMEICALS LTD,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

68,678/-; Rs.90,583/-; Rs.22,212/-; Rs.69,017/- and Rs.1,94,282/- in the Asstt.Years 2005-06 to 2010-11. Firstly, facts on all vital points on this issue are common in all the assessment years. For the sake of reference, we take up the facts from Asstt.Year 2005-06. 4. The ld.AO has issued show cause notice

THA ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA vs. M/S. GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

68,678/-; Rs.90,583/-; Rs.22,212/-; Rs.69,017/- and Rs.1,94,282/- in the Asstt.Years 2005-06 to 2010-11. Firstly, facts on all vital points on this issue are common in all the assessment years. For the sake of reference, we take up the facts from Asstt.Year 2005-06. 4. The ld.AO has issued show cause notice

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

68,678/-; Rs.90,583/-; Rs.22,212/-; Rs.69,017/- and Rs.1,94,282/- in the Asstt.Years 2005-06 to 2010-11. Firstly, facts on all vital points on this issue are common in all the assessment years. For the sake of reference, we take up the facts from Asstt.Year 2005-06. 4. The ld.AO has issued show cause notice

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

68,678/-; Rs.90,583/-; Rs.22,212/-; Rs.69,017/- and Rs.1,94,282/- in the Asstt.Years 2005-06 to 2010-11. Firstly, facts on all vital points on this issue are common in all the assessment years. For the sake of reference, we take up the facts from Asstt.Year 2005-06. 4. The ld.AO has issued show cause notice

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

68,678/-; Rs.90,583/-; Rs.22,212/-; Rs.69,017/- and Rs.1,94,282/- in the Asstt.Years 2005-06 to 2010-11. Firstly, facts on all vital points on this issue are common in all the assessment years. For the sake of reference, we take up the facts from Asstt.Year 2005-06. 4. The ld.AO has issued show cause notice

THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMEICALS LTD, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

68,678/-; Rs.90,583/-; Rs.22,212/-; Rs.69,017/- and Rs.1,94,282/- in the Asstt.Years 2005-06 to 2010-11. Firstly, facts on all vital points on this issue are common in all the assessment years. For the sake of reference, we take up the facts from Asstt.Year 2005-06. 4. The ld.AO has issued show cause notice

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LTD.,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

68,678/-; Rs.90,583/-; Rs.22,212/-; Rs.69,017/- and Rs.1,94,282/- in the Asstt.Years 2005-06 to 2010-11. Firstly, facts on all vital points on this issue are common in all the assessment years. For the sake of reference, we take up the facts from Asstt.Year 2005-06. 4. The ld.AO has issued show cause notice

INFINITY INTERNATIONAL,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI PRESENT JURIS. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalinfinity International, Nfac, Delhi Vs. H-611, Titanium City Centre, Present Jurisdiction 100 Ft. Anandnagar Road, Ito, Ward 3(3)(1), Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 Ahmedabad [Pan: Aaefi 2610 J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Ukti Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the validity of reopening holding that tangible material in the form of Investigation Wing report, statement of Shri Chandresh Vyas and field enquiry constituted sufficient basis for formation of belief. On merits

ADITYA MEDISALES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2014-15 Aditya Medisales Ltd. Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1) 402, 4Th Floor, R.K. Centre Vs Vadodara. Fatehgunj Vadodara 390 002. Pan : Aabca 9317 J Assessment Year :2014-15 Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1) Aditya Medisales Ltd. Vadodara. Vs 402, 4Th Floor, R.K. Centre Fatehgunj Vadodara 390 002. Pan : Aabca 9317 J

282 3. Aggrieved against the disallowances, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] 1, Vadodara. The learned CIT [A] by this impugned order allowed the interest expenditure following the earlier Appellate order passed for the assessment year 2012-13 in assessee’s own case. On the issue of discount paid to doctors, the learned