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

section 292C. 1.4 The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the statement of Shri Pradeep Agarwal was recorded u/s. 131 of the IT. Act which provide that the officers/IT. Authority have the same powers as are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908; therefore, such statement could not be taken lightly or dismissed

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

section 292C. 1.4 The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the statement of Shri Pradeep Agarwal was recorded u/s. 131 of the IT. Act which provide that the officers/IT. Authority have the same powers as are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908; therefore, such statement could not be taken lightly or dismissed

SHRI PRAVINCHANDRA R PATEL,VADODARA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

68 to 69D of the Act. As such, it is the onus of the revenue to bring out the necessary evidence to hold that the assessee has made investments in the impugned land which is unexplained under the provisions of section 69B of the Act. Likewise, the contents of the email having attachments of page 157 and 158 were

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

68 to 69D of the Act. As such, it is the onus of the revenue to bring out the necessary evidence to hold that the assessee has made investments in the impugned land which is unexplained under the provisions of section 69B of the Act. Likewise, the contents of the email having attachments of page 157 and 158 were

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

68 to 69D of the Act. As such, it is the onus of the revenue to bring out the necessary evidence to hold that the assessee has made investments in the impugned land which is unexplained under the provisions of section 69B of the Act. Likewise, the contents of the email having attachments of page 157 and 158 were

SAKARIYA METAL ROLLING MILLS,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(10), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddharatha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 34/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2015-2016 Sakariya Metal Rolling Mills, I.T.O., 257, Gujrat Vapraj Mahamandal, Vs. Ward-3(3)(10), Vasahat, S.P. Ring Road, Ahmedabad. Odhav, Ahmedabad-382415. Pan: Aadfs3443A

292C of the Act is rebuttable presumption but the burden lies upon the assessee to rebut the same. At the time of hearing, the learned AR for the assessee has not brought any material available on record suggesting that the impugned loose sheet was merely a dumb document. At this juncture, it is also important to note that the assessee

SHRI RAJESHHBHAI JIVRAJ DESAI,,MEHSANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2291/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Shri Rajeshbhai Jivraj Desai, D.C.I.T., Prop. M/S.Rajiv Enterprise, Vs. Central Circle-2(1), 5 Ashoknagar Society, Ahmedabad. Radhanpur Road, Mehsana.

292C, inter alia, provides that where any books of account or other documents are found in possession or control of any person in the course of search under section 132 or survey under section 133A, it may be presumed that such books or documents belong to such person. Undisputedly, such presumption is rebuttable. 10.2 We further note that

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AWAS DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 368/Ahd/2020 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T, M/S Awas Developers, Central Circle-1(4), Vs. “Agam Buglows” Ahmedabad. Opp. Subhash Society, Sanand-Kalol Road, Ahmedabad.

68 of the PB. The AR also drew attention to the fact that the AO in order to verify the fact of any on money having been collected correspondence directly with the members of the scheme was undertaken by direct inquiry by issuing letter u/s 133(6) of the Act. However, it was contended that

PAWAN SATYNARAYAN JALAN,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2)., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy

292C of the Act which states that the document found from the premises of the search party or in the course of survey proceedings that such document belongs to such person and the contents of such documents are true and correct. Thus the documents found from the premises of the search party cannot be treated as dumbed document, particularly

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2)., AHMEDABAD vs. PAWAN SATYNARAYAN JALAN, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy

292C of the Act which states that the document found from the premises of the search party or in the course of survey proceedings that such document belongs to such person and the contents of such documents are true and correct. Thus the documents found from the premises of the search party cannot be treated as dumbed document, particularly

KAMALKUMAR RAMKUMAR AGRAWAL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,21,000/-, whereas the registered sale deed reflected a consideration of only Rs.1,11,60,500/-. The Assessing Officer treated the differential amount of Rs.56,60,500/- as on- money paid by the assessee in cash. The assessee denied having paid any cash and submitted copies of the booking agreement dated 21.09.2010, conveyance deed, ledger confirmation from the developer

THE JT.CIT, (OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VADODARA vs. M/S. NARAYAN LAND ESTATE,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T(Ss).A. Nos. 182,184,185&187/Ahd/2019 (Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15) Jcit(Osd) Vs. M/S. Narayan Land Estate Central Circle-1, “Narayan Chambers” 607, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, B/H Indian Petrol Pump, Race Course Circle, Station Road-Bharuch, Vadodara-390007 Gujarat-392001 [Pan No. Aacfn0406B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

68,02,000 Narayan Residency 2,78,81,955 Narayan Square 1,10,55,050 Narayan Shrusti Duplex* 2,06,42,009 Narayan Shrusti Tenament* 4,88,61,167 Narayan Garden (Shopping) 31,50,000 Total 13,83,92,181 *In the schemes, the amount of Rs. 3,23,822/- has been offered for taxation in A.Y. 2016-17 without

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VADODARA vs. M/S. NARAYAN LAND ESTATE,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T(Ss).A. Nos. 182,184,185&187/Ahd/2019 (Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15) Jcit(Osd) Vs. M/S. Narayan Land Estate Central Circle-1, “Narayan Chambers” 607, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, B/H Indian Petrol Pump, Race Course Circle, Station Road-Bharuch, Vadodara-390007 Gujarat-392001 [Pan No. Aacfn0406B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

68,02,000 Narayan Residency 2,78,81,955 Narayan Square 1,10,55,050 Narayan Shrusti Duplex* 2,06,42,009 Narayan Shrusti Tenament* 4,88,61,167 Narayan Garden (Shopping) 31,50,000 Total 13,83,92,181 *In the schemes, the amount of Rs. 3,23,822/- has been offered for taxation in A.Y. 2016-17 without