DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA vs. NEOTECH EDUCATION FOUNDATION, VADODARA

section 132 of the Act. 108. The facts of the case are that there was the search and seizure operation under the provisions of section 132 of the Act at the premises of the assessee dated 13th November 2014. Accordingly, the proceedings for the assessment under the provisions of section 153A of the Act were initiated

ABHAYKUMAR SEVANTILAL SANGHAVI,DEESA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE- PALANPUR , PALANPUR

Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1367/Ahd/2024 & 1368/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Abhaykumar Sevantilal Acit Circle, Palanpur बनाम/ Sanghavi [Old Jurisdiction-Circle, V/S. Sanghavi Brothers Palanpur. 1St Floor, Swastik Bldg New Jurisdiction-Circle, Nr. City Police Station Gandhinagar.] Nr. Dena Bank, Main Bazar Deesa – 385 535 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afbps 1660 L (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Pertain To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2016-17 & 2017-18. Since The Issues Involved Are Common & Connected, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. The Appeals Arise Out Of The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The

Section 115BBE Not applicable Yes Total Additions by AO Rs. 94,71,572 Rs. 1,08,44,820/- Assessed Income by AO Rs. 90,48,690/- Rs. 1,35,21,250/- 3. The assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A), who found no merit in the assessee's appeals for both assessment years, sustaining all additions and disallowances made

ABHAYKUMAR SEVANTILAL SANGHAVI,DEESA vs. OLD JURISDICTION- CIRCLE,PALANPUR NEW JURISDICTION-CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1367/Ahd/2024 & 1368/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Abhaykumar Sevantilal Acit Circle, Palanpur बनाम/ Sanghavi [Old Jurisdiction-Circle, V/S. Sanghavi Brothers Palanpur. 1St Floor, Swastik Bldg New Jurisdiction-Circle, Nr. City Police Station Gandhinagar.] Nr. Dena Bank, Main Bazar Deesa – 385 535 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afbps 1660 L (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Pertain To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2016-17 & 2017-18. Since The Issues Involved Are Common & Connected, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. The Appeals Arise Out Of The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The

Section 115BBE Not applicable Yes Total Additions by AO Rs. 94,71,572 Rs. 1,08,44,820/- Assessed Income by AO Rs. 90,48,690/- Rs. 1,35,21,250/- 3. The assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A), who found no merit in the assessee's appeals for both assessment years, sustaining all additions and disallowances made

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AASHNA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 417/Ahd/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2018-2019 Income Tax Officer, M/S Aashna Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ward-1(1)(1), Vs. 301, Satkar Complex, Ahmedabad. Off C.G Road, Near Lal Bunglow, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aabca9995Q

292 and supported the order of the ld. CIT-A. 9. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials on record. In the case on hand, the AO treated the credit of unsecured loan in the books of the assessee as unexplained cash credit under section 68

THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SHRI CHIMANBHAI JOITRAM PATEL, VADODARA

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 591/Ahd/2020 (निर्धररवरध/ Assessment Years : 2014-15)

68 of the Act.?" 3. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the disallowance made on account of unpaid VAT liability under section 43B of the Act.?" 3. The Ld. DR at the outset brought to our notice that there is a delay in filing

SMT. PARULBEN RAJUBHAI TRIVEDI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1308/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14)

68 of the Act, it appears that it is not obligatory on the part of the assessee to vouch the source of the source and thus, onus is reasonably discharged. This also means that the AO is not required to obdurately adhere to such expectation of superior authority. The AO is thus entitled to draw satisfaction in favour

ITO, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PARULBEN RAJUBHAI TRIVEDI , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

292 (Bom.) where in somewhat similar circumstances, the decision of the Tribunal to cancel the order passed under section 263 of the Act was upheld. Thus, driven by the precedent, where the inquiry of 'source of source' is not found to be the requirement of law, the alleged inadequacy in this respect should not be fastened on the assessee

M/S. YUSUFBHAI & CO.,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), VADODARA

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

292-C of the Act. Accordingly, we presume that the documents found during the survey proceedings reflecting the receivable of Rs. 20 lakhs are true. But in our considered view such receivables cannot be termed as income of the assessee. The contention of the Ld. DR that the impugned amount may also represent the unexplained cash credit under section

PARTH PARENTERAL PVT. LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4,, MEHSANA

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms Madhumita Royअपील सं./Ita No.2719/Ahd/2016 &"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2013-2014

68,299 amounting in allto Rs. 6,99,716 under Section 36(l)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) on the ground that it is not paid within due date in as much as it is paid before the end of the financial year and therefore it is allowable as deduction. 2. The learned

AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,860/- to the total income of the assessee on a protective basis as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 6. Further, since the assessee had neither filed her return of income under section 139(1) within the prescribed time nor in response to notice under section 153C, penalty proceedings under section 271F were

AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,860/- to the total income of the assessee on a protective basis as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 6. Further, since the assessee had neither filed her return of income under section 139(1) within the prescribed time nor in response to notice under section 153C, penalty proceedings under section 271F were

AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,860/- to the total income of the assessee on a protective basis as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 6. Further, since the assessee had neither filed her return of income under section 139(1) within the prescribed time nor in response to notice under section 153C, penalty proceedings under section 271F were

THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT TERCE LABORATORIES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

292 CTR 354 (Guj.) Our attention was also drawn to the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT, Gandhinagar vs. Aashadeep Industries [2018] 256 taxmann.com 440 (Guj.) pointing out there from that on the issue whether the restriction of bogus purchases to the extent of 25% of their value by the Tribunal was correct

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT TERCE LABORATORIES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

292 CTR 354 (Guj.) Our attention was also drawn to the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT, Gandhinagar vs. Aashadeep Industries [2018] 256 taxmann.com 440 (Guj.) pointing out there from that on the issue whether the restriction of bogus purchases to the extent of 25% of their value by the Tribunal was correct

THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT TERCE LABORATORIES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

292 CTR 354 (Guj.) Our attention was also drawn to the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT, Gandhinagar vs. Aashadeep Industries [2018] 256 taxmann.com 440 (Guj.) pointing out there from that on the issue whether the restriction of bogus purchases to the extent of 25% of their value by the Tribunal was correct

SHRI SHAILESHKUMAR SHIVRAMBAHI PATEL,,PALANPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5,, PALANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year:2012-13 Shaileshkumarshivrambhai Patel, The Ito, Ward-5, Prop. M/S. Toran Aqua Link, 23, Naval Vs Palanpur. Park Society, O/S. Becharpura Railway Station, Palanpur, Banaskantha-385001. Pan :Aefpp 7860 J (Applicant) (Responent)

68 assuming that assessee was unable to prove the source of the same income and concealing the same. The penalty was initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars and thereby concealing income. After considering the reply of the assessee, the Assessing Officerimposed penalty under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. ANILKUMAR OCHHAVLAL DESAI, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Jurisdictional Assessing Officer?

68 of the Act. 4. In appeal before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee challenged the initiation of proceedings and Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations: Based on the above submissions the legal heir submits that the assessment order is to be quashed and set aside." I.T.A No. 292/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Page

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 68/ 69 of the IT Act, 1961.In many cases, the depositors may be mere name-lenders. 4. Details of your assessee: ITA Nos.690 to 694/Ahd/2023 Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel vs. Assessing Officer Asst.Years– 2015-16 to 2017-18 Details as provided in the enclosed excel sheet contains Name (surname first) and PAN of the assessees along with their account