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 69C of the Act, treating it as unexplained expenditure. 10.3 On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO's finding that the suppliers were non-genuine but disagreed with the 100% disallowance. Relying on jurisdictional precedents, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to 6% of the purchase value, concluding that in cases where sales

EAGLE STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P. K. Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

68,187/- being transportation charges paid/credited in the above mentioned account without complying the provisions of section 194C of the Income-tax Act and without complying the provisions of Section 194C(7) of the Act, is disallowed u/s. 40

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.

68,90,000.00 11,36,85,000.00 12,05,75,000.00 Total 40,38,25,000.00 GTC Petrotech Pvt. Ltd. 2014-15 Ambika Commodeal P. Ltd. 10,75,000.00 2,04,25,000.00 2,15,00,000.00 Total 2,15,00,000.00 4. On examination of the share capital and share premium amounts claimed to be received by the assessee

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 68 of the I. T. Act, 1961 does not apply on such advances received towards sales. From the members towards booking of the shops / offices. The Honourable ITAT, Kolkata in the case of M/s. Saha Enterprises Vs. ITO in ITA No. 2141/KOL/2014 dated 06/02/2015 has held that the trade advances cannot be treated as cash credits u/s. 68

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

section 68 of the I. T. Act, 1961 does not apply on such advances received towards sales. From the members towards booking of the shops / offices. The Honourable ITAT, Kolkata in the case of M/s. Saha Enterprises Vs. ITO in ITA No. 2141/KOL/2014 dated 06/02/2015 has held that the trade advances cannot be treated as cash credits u/s. 68

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 68 of the I. T. Act, 1961 does not apply on such advances received towards sales. From the members towards booking of the shops / offices. The Honourable ITAT, Kolkata in the case of M/s. Saha Enterprises Vs. ITO in ITA No. 2141/KOL/2014 dated 06/02/2015 has held that the trade advances cannot be treated as cash credits u/s. 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

section 68 of the I. T. Act, 1961 does not apply on such advances received towards sales. From the members towards booking of the shops / offices. The Honourable ITAT, Kolkata in the case of M/s. Saha Enterprises Vs. ITO in ITA No. 2141/KOL/2014 dated 06/02/2015 has held that the trade advances cannot be treated as cash credits u/s. 68

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

68 of the Act in the given facts and circumstances. In holding so, we draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chanakya Developers reported in 43 taxmann.com 91 wherein it was held as under: “9. We are in complete agreement with CIT (A) and the Tribunal both

SHRI NARENDRA B. PATEL,,SABARKANTHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, HIMATNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3153/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Narendra B. Patel, I.T.O., 592, Pampaliva Vas, Vs. Ward-2, Moyad, Himatnagar. Sabarkantha-383110. Pan: Asupp6989M

section 68 of the Act except the sum of Rs. 2 lacs and added the remaining amount of Rs. 46,24,400/- to the total income of the assessee. A.Y. 2011-12 11 Survey No. 124 12.4 The assessee has purchased the impugned survey number at a price of Rs. 2,11,90,400/-. As per the assessee

JAP AGRO FOODS PVT.LTD.,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(4),, BARODA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 191/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 M/S Jap Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O, Block No.295, Vs. Ward-1(4), Ranu Tal. Padra, Baroda. Vadodara.

section 68 of the Act by us while deciding the loan amount of Rs. 50 lakh from Shri Nilesh N Panchal in vide paragraph no 8.5 of this order. For detailed discussion please refer paragraph no 8.3 to 8.5 of this order. 16.8 Therefore in our considered view treating entire cash deposit of Rs. 60,40

SWASTIK DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-2018 Swastik Developers The Ito, Ward-3(3)(5), 21, Swastik House Vs. Ahmedabad. B/H.Sardar Patel Stadium Ahmedabad. Pan : Acyfs 0641 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Prashant Shrivastav, Ar Assessee By : Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/08/2025

40,714/- under section 68 of the Act, being unexplained cash credits in the form of partners’ capital. 3.3 The AO held

ITO WARD-4(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. VALLEY COMTRADE PVT LTD ( EARLIER KNOWN AS JHAWAR COMTRADE PVT. LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddharatha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2034/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 I.T.O, M/S. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., Ward-4(1)(4), Vs. (Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Ahmedabad. Pvt. Ltd.,) C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli Bmw Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aadcs3553N & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 68/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 M/S. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O, (Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Vs. Ward-1(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd.,) Surat. C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli Bmw Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aadcs3553N

68 of the Act by furnishing the necessary details about the source of share capital and premium received from above mentioned 5 investor companies. 13. Coming to the companies namely M/s. Pearl Tracom Pvt. Ltd., M/s 13.1 With respect to above 3 companies the DDIT in commission report under section 131(1)(d) has submitted that one company namely

DUSHYANTSINH YADVENDRASINH CHUDASAMA,VADODARA vs. DY.COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.353/Ahd/2022 & 354/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively Dushyantsinh Yadvendrasinh The Dy.Commissioner Of बनाम/ Chudasama Income Tax V/S. C/O.Anil R. Shah (Ca), Circle -1 (2) Shreeji House, 4Th Floor Vadodara – 390 007 B/H. M.J. Library Ahmedabad - 380 006 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acrpc 1888 M (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Kinjal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

40(a)(ia) of the Act for failure to deduct TDS. The AO further disallowed Rs.8,55,000/- of interest expenses paid to related parties due to non-deduction of TDS. The AO also made an addition of Rs.69,709/- under Section 43B of the Act for unpaid VAT liability and Rs.12,83,000/- under Section 68

DUSHYANTSINH YADVENDRASINH CHUDASAMA,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4), VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.353/Ahd/2022 & 354/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively Dushyantsinh Yadvendrasinh The Dy.Commissioner Of बनाम/ Chudasama Income Tax V/S. C/O.Anil R. Shah (Ca), Circle -1 (2) Shreeji House, 4Th Floor Vadodara – 390 007 B/H. M.J. Library Ahmedabad - 380 006 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acrpc 1888 M (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Kinjal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

40(a)(ia) of the Act for failure to deduct TDS. The AO further disallowed Rs.8,55,000/- of interest expenses paid to related parties due to non-deduction of TDS. The AO also made an addition of Rs.69,709/- under Section 43B of the Act for unpaid VAT liability and Rs.12,83,000/- under Section 68

JHAVERI TRADING AND INVESTMENT PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENT. CIR. 1(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 401 To 403/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2012-2013 To 2014-2015) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 399 & 400/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2010-2011 & 2011-12)

68 of the Act amounting to ₹ 2,84,90,000.00 34. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the assessee in its ground of appeal for the AY 2013-14 is identical to the issue raised by the assessee in ITA No. 401/AHD/2023 for the assessment year 2012-13 except the change in the amount

JHAVERI TRADING AND INVESTMENT PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENT. CIR. 1(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 401 To 403/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2012-2013 To 2014-2015) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 399 & 400/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2010-2011 & 2011-12)

68 of the Act amounting to ₹ 2,84,90,000.00 34. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the assessee in its ground of appeal for the AY 2013-14 is identical to the issue raised by the assessee in ITA No. 401/AHD/2023 for the assessment year 2012-13 except the change in the amount

JHAVERI TRADING AND INVESTMENT PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENT. CIR. 1(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 401 To 403/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2012-2013 To 2014-2015) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 399 & 400/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2010-2011 & 2011-12)

68 of the Act amounting to ₹ 2,84,90,000.00 34. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the assessee in its ground of appeal for the AY 2013-14 is identical to the issue raised by the assessee in ITA No. 401/AHD/2023 for the assessment year 2012-13 except the change in the amount

JHAVERI TRADING AND INVESTMENT PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENT. CIR. 1(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 401 To 403/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2012-2013 To 2014-2015) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 399 & 400/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2010-2011 & 2011-12)

68 of the Act amounting to ₹ 2,84,90,000.00 34. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the assessee in its ground of appeal for the AY 2013-14 is identical to the issue raised by the assessee in ITA No. 401/AHD/2023 for the assessment year 2012-13 except the change in the amount