SHRI MUFIZ BURHAMUDDIN SIDDIQUI,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground No. 6 of the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 41 of the Act of Rs. 6,76,68,302/- 16. The brief facts in relation to this

DR K R SHROFF FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\n\n29

68 of the Act in respect of sale consideration of\nshares of e-infochips Limited. Further, the Assessing Officer had also\ndenied exemption under Section 11 and 12 of the Act as claimed by the\nassessee.\n\n3.\nAggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee had\nfiled an appeal before the First Appellate Authority which

SHRI BHUMIKA STRIPS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

section 68 of the Act. The Assessee during the appellate proceedings clarified that M/s. Kabra and Company, wherein the proprietor Kabra Suresh Prabhulal, as Kartha in his HUF capacity, and not in individual capacity. Thus, Assessing Officer wrongly noted that there is only salary income of Kabra Suresh Prabhulal, whereas M/s. Kabra and Company is having GST No. 24AACHK5257R1ZQ

SHRI BHUMIKA STRIPS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

section 68 of the Act. The Assessee during the appellate proceedings clarified that M/s. Kabra and Company, wherein the proprietor Kabra Suresh Prabhulal, as Kartha in his HUF capacity, and not in individual capacity. Thus, Assessing Officer wrongly noted that there is only salary income of Kabra Suresh Prabhulal, whereas M/s. Kabra and Company is having GST No. 24AACHK5257R1ZQ

SHRI BHUMIKA STRIPS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

section 68 of the Act. The Assessee during the appellate proceedings clarified that M/s. Kabra and Company, wherein the proprietor Kabra Suresh Prabhulal, as Kartha in his HUF capacity, and not in individual capacity. Thus, Assessing Officer wrongly noted that there is only salary income of Kabra Suresh Prabhulal, whereas M/s. Kabra and Company is having GST No. 24AACHK5257R1ZQ

DCIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ALPESHKUMAR C.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1908/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive In Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. Pan: Aeapp9489G

302 ITR 63 (Guj.) wherein the Hon'ble High court of Gujarat has held that :- "in absence of any material on record to show that there was any unexplained investment made by the assesses which was reflected by the alleged unaccounted sales the finding of ITA nos.1908& 1991/AHD/2018 Asstt. Year 2011-12 25 the Tribunal that only the gross profit

ACIT (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. DR K R SHROFF FOUNDATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\n\n29

68 of the Act in respect of sale consideration of\nshares of e-infochips Limited. Further, the Assessing Officer had also\ndenied exemption under Section 11 and 12 of the Act as claimed by the\nassessee.\n\n3. Aggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee had\nfiled an appeal before the First Appellate Authority which

SANDEEP MOHANRAJ SINGHI,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE4(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

68 of the Act in respect of sale consideration of shares of e-infochips Limited. Further, the Assessing Officer had also denied exemption under Section 11 and 12 of the Act as claimed by the assessee. 3. Aggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority which was decided

SHREENATH DEVELOPERS,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(5), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68,00,000/- as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act in the hands of the assessee on the ground that the payments were not paid by the assessee to the land owners from whom the land was purchased. 6. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non-appearance

SHREE VEER BUILDBEST PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(3) NOW WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.892/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shree Veer Buildbest Pvt.Ltd. The Ito बनाम/ 302, Swapneel – 5 Ward-4(1)(1) Commerce Six Road Ahmedabad- 380 015 V/S. Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aakcs 8358 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) ….. "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 21/09/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “ The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short], Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 28/03/2014 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. Shree Veer Buildbest Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2011-12

302, Swapneel – 5 Ward-4(1)(1) Commerce Six Road Ahmedabad- 380 015 v/s. Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AAKCS 8358 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) ….. "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, AR Revenue by : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 23/07/2024 आदेश

SHRI DHARMENDRASINH R.VAGHELA,,BARODA vs. THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-2,, BARODA

In the result, ground no.2 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 68 of the Act and added Rs.20 Lakhs to the total income of assessee. 4.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred the appeal before the CIT(A). 4.3 Before the CIT(A), the assessee changed the stand towards source of loan altogether and submitted that Rs.10 Lakhs was received from Vijaysinh Sisodiya and another Rs.10 Lakhs was received from Mahendrasinh

THE ITO., WARD-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. GAYATRI INTERMEDIATES PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

302 ITR 221 (All),it has been held as under:- Business income - Profits chargeable to tax under s. 41(1) - Time-barred debts taken to P & L a/c - Unilateral act of assessee debtor in writing back time-barred debts does not amount to cessation of liability, hence not chargeable under s. 41 (1)- CIT vs. Sugauli Sugar Works

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

302 (Guj.). He further submitted that the PCIT had given the approval to the incomplete reason as recorded by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the approval granted under Section 151 of the Act was vitiated and invalid. The other contention of the Ld. AR was that the reason of the Assessing Officer was based on material found during search

DEEP ENERGY RESOURCES LTD. (FORMERLY DEEP INDUSTRIES LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the matter is restored to the file of Ld

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

68 of the Act are attracted this case. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs. 3,69,50,000/- in respect of loan received from M/s. Rati Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. In addition to the above, the Assessing Officer also added a sum of Rs. 10,16,125/- under Section 69C of the Act, amounting

ROBIN RAMAVTAR GOENKA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue IT[SS]A Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

302 ITR 63 (Guj); * Man Mohan Sadani vs. CIT – (2008) 304 ITR 52 (MP); * CIT v. Samir Synthetics Mill – (2010) 326 ITR 410 (Guj); * DCIT v. Panna Corporation – Tax Appeal 323 of 2000 (Guj); * Chetan C. Patel v. ACIT – IT(SS)A 522/Ahd/2011 and others; * CIT v. Jay Builders – (2013) 33 taxmann.com 62 (Guj); * Greenfield Reality

SHRI ANKIT TEJPAL JAIN,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Ankit Tejpal Jain, Income Tax Officer, 302, Parshvanath Apartment, Vs Ward 1(2)(1), Subhash Nagar, Shahibaug, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380004 Pan : Airpj 1115 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. Dr

302, Parshvanath Apartment, Vs Ward 1(2)(1), Subhash Nagar, Shahibaug, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380004 PAN : AIRPJ 1115 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR Revenue by : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 29/07/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 29/07/2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP

SANKALP VENTURE LLP,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

302 ITR 63 (Guj); * Man Mohan Sadani vs. CIT – (2008) 304 ITR 52 (MP); * CIT v. Samir Synthetics Mill – (2010) 326 ITR 410 (Guj); * DCIT v. Panna Corporation – Tax Appeal 323 of 2000 (Guj); * Chetan C. Patel v. ACIT – IT(SS)A 522/Ahd/2011 and others; * CIT v. Jay Builders – (2013) 33 taxmann.com 62 (Guj); * Greenfield Reality

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SANKALP ORGANISERS PVT LTD , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

302 ITR 63 (Guj); * Man Mohan Sadani vs. CIT – (2008) 304 ITR 52 (MP); * CIT v. Samir Synthetics Mill – (2010) 326 ITR 410 (Guj); * DCIT v. Panna Corporation – Tax Appeal 323 of 2000 (Guj); * Chetan C. Patel v. ACIT – IT(SS)A 522/Ahd/2011 and others; * CIT v. Jay Builders – (2013) 33 taxmann.com 62 (Guj); * Greenfield Reality