ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

Section 68 of the Act cannot be upheld……….. 13.8. The Ld. CIT[A] further held that the AO in his show cause notice as well as in assessment order has referred inquiry report pertaining to IT(SS)A No. 73/Ahd/2025 and others Group Appeals - HK Ispat Pvt Ltd Asst.Year : 2015-16 to 2021-2022 - 29

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. SARTHAV BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 908/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Sarthav Builders, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. B-1, Abhishree Complex, Ahmedabad. Opp. Star Bazar, Satellite, Ahmedabad. Pan: Abffs3812C

29,084/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act by making the addition to the total

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. STHAPATYA SHILP CONSTRUCTION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 907/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.170/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Sthapatya Shilp Construction, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 2, Abhiraj Complex, Ahmedabad. 68-B, Swastic Society, Ahmedabad. Pan: Abffs2922P

section 68 of the Act. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT (A). Hence the ground of appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed. 29

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S.DHARMEN MARBLE & STONE, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 794/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.171/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Dharmen Marble & Stone, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aabfd5172B

section 68 of the Act. 29. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. EL DORADO BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

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

29,82,89,600/- under Section 68 of the Act, without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the material

HARISHKUMAR KHUSHALRAY BHATT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(2) NOW WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Harishkumar Khushalray Bhatt Ito, Ward-3(3)(2) P/1, Chandragupta Apartment Vs. Ahmedabad. Nr. Gordhandas Patel Hospital Vastrapur Ahmedabad. Pan : Abspb 3786 F (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Pritesh L. Shah, Ar : Shri Uday Kishanrao Kakne, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

68 and section 69A without proper analysis. It was submitted that the additions resulted in double taxation of the same amounts, and the rejection of the books was not justified in the absence of any cogent discrepancy. The AR accordingly prayed for deletion of the additions and granting of relief as prayed. 7 15. The learned Departmental Representative

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GTC OILFIELDS SERVICES P. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the 8 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royappeal No. Ay Appellant Respondent Sn M/S. Gtc Oilfields Services P. Ltd., 2009-10 The Dcit, 61, New York Tower, A-Block, It(Ss)A Nos. 1-3 2010-11 Central Circle 1(4), Thaltej Char Rasta, S.G. Road, 314 To 316/Ahd/2019 2014-15 Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380054 Pan : Aaacg 8684 P The Dcit, M/S. Gtc Oilfields Services P. Ltd.

section 68 of the Act are satisfied i.e. identity and creditworthiness of investors and genuineness of transaction are established. Hence the AO was not justified in treating share capital and share premium of Rs.21,00,44,500/- received from Westwell and Yamini as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. Accordingly, addition

DHARAMTAR MOTORS SERVICES PETROLEUM PRODUCT,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the results, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1438 & 2534/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S Dharamtar Motor Services Income Tax Officer, Petroleum Product, Vs. Ward 6(1)(4) C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Advocate 903, Ahmedabad. Sapphire Complex, C.G. Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aabfd9182F

29,079/- and (ii) Nimesh C Shah, Rs.8,03,951/- making total addition of Rs.2,59,33,030/- by applying Section 68

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA -HUF, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 795/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.169/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., Dharmenbhai M. Sutaria, Huf Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aafhd1653K

29 lacs in the assessment year 2011-12 i.e. subsequent AY which was not explained and therefore the same was treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JAS INFRA SPACE PRIVATE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 did not apply to the advances received for alleged sale of land. 3 The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground, which may be necessary.” 3. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT-A erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for Rs. 33.92 crores

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JAS INFRASPACE PRIVATE LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 did not apply to the advances received for alleged sale of land. 3 The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground, which may be necessary.” 3. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT-A erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for Rs. 33.92 crores

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JAS INFRA SPACE PRIVATE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 did not apply to the advances received for alleged sale of land. 3 The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground, which may be necessary.” 3. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT-A erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for Rs. 33.92 crores

JAS INFRASPACE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 did not apply to the advances received for alleged sale of land. 3 The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground, which may be necessary.” 3. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT-A erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for Rs. 33.92 crores

THE DCIT-CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE SIDDHI INFRABUILD PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V. Mahadeokar

29-12-2017 for all three years. Since common issues are involved and the additions are founded on the same set of seized documents, the appeals are being disposed of by this consolidated order. ITA Nos. 1635 to 1637/Ahd/2019 Asst. Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2014-15 2 2. Facts of the Case 2.1 The Assessing Officer framed reassessments

THE DCIT-CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE SIDDHI INFRABUILD PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V. Mahadeokar

29-12-2017 for all three years. Since common issues are involved and the additions are founded on the same set of seized documents, the appeals are being disposed of by this consolidated order. ITA Nos. 1635 to 1637/Ahd/2019 Asst. Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2014-15 2 2. Facts of the Case 2.1 The Assessing Officer framed reassessments

M/S. FLOURISH PUREFOODS PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-2(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. No.518/Ahd/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Flourish Purefoods Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 11-12, Ecs House, Garden View, Tax, Nr. Global Hospital, Bodakdev, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad-380054 Ahmedabad [Pan No.Aadcv2683B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

29, 2017, confirm that the capital advances were recorded, and no issue was raised about them by the Assessing Officer. This makes it clear that the sums in question represents "capital advances received back." The Counsel for the assessee also submitted that it is well-established that no addition can be made under Section 68

MADHU SILICA FOUNDATION,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68 of the Act has no application as the amounts have been received towards CSR which cannot be considered as unexplained. 3. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, Madhu Silica Foundation vs. ITO Asst. Year –2022-23 explanations and information submitted by the appellant

M/S. ARIHANT JEWELS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 to section 69D but business loss was not covered. It is only by Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f. 01.04.2017 it is inserted in the provision to deny benefit of set off of any loss. Therefore, in the case of the assessee, if we reduce the business income by Rs. 50,00,000/- (Income Tax Declaration During Survey) then