SHRI ALTAFHUSEN MAHEMUDUL HASAN SIDDIKI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,RANGE-9,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee i

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.577/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.969/Ahd/2015 { "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Altafhusen M. Siddiki, Prop Dcit, Circle-9 Of Sunmoon Roadways 6/D/1, Vs Ahmedabad Pursottam Estate, Nr. Cozy Hotel, Ranipur Patia, Sarkhej Road, Narol, Ahmedabad-382405 Pan No.Arsps3765P

Section 40A(3) and rule 6DD that they are intended to regulate the business transactions and to prevent the use of unaccounted money or reduce the chances to use black- money for business transactions.. If the payment is made by a crossed cheque drawn on a bank or a crossed bank draft then it will be easier

VARUN SATYAPAL SINGHAL,VADODARA vs. THE INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3( NOW THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That He Shall Not Be Pressing For Ground Nos. 3, 4 & 5 Of His

68 of Rs.67.89,405/- During the course of assessment proceedings it was noticed by AO that the appellant has paid interest @15% and up on deposits and unsecured loans and most of the persons are covered u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act. For instance, in the case of M/s Mariya Ship Breaking Pvt. Ltd, who is a person covered

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.

section 40A(3) of the Act and on account of understatement of closing stock. 19. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the capital account of one of the partners namely Shri Ganshayamsingh Vaghela was showing debit balance in the books of the assessee as on 31st March 2010 at ₹ 16,68

M/S. P. GAUTAM & CO.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, we are of the view that the Ld

68,304/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the ld. A.O. inquired why certain expenses amounting to Rs. 32,65,805/- should not be disallowed u/s. 40A(3), being in excess of limit I.T.A No. 538/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No. 3 M/s. P. Gautam & Co. vs. Dy. CIT specified under the Act. These payments were made for printing

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

68 of the Act. Thus the ground of appeal raised by the Assessee is hereby allowed. 29. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the addition made by the AO for ₹ 15 Lacs under the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. 30. The AO during the assessment

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD), CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

68 of the Act. Thus the ground of appeal raised by the Assessee is hereby allowed. 29. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the addition made by the AO for ₹ 15 Lacs under the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. 30. The AO during the assessment

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

68 of the Act. Thus the ground of appeal raised by the Assessee is hereby allowed. 29. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the addition made by the AO for ₹ 15 Lacs under the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. 30. The AO during the assessment

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

68 of the Act. Thus the ground of appeal raised by the Assessee is hereby allowed. 29. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the addition made by the AO for ₹ 15 Lacs under the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. 30. The AO during the assessment

M/S. PRAMUKH COTPRESS INDIA PVT. LTD.,,SABARKANTHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, S.K.WARD- 2,, HIMATNAGAR

section 40(A)(3) of the Act ,provided in Rule 6DD(b) of the Income Tax Rules,1962,since the assessee has not established that the payment in cash was made as prescribed by the Rules of the Government organization, which finding the Ld.Counsel for the assessee was unable to displace before us. 6.1 The balance disallowance of Rs.67

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

3. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition made by AO of Rs.3,24,382/- in respect of Unsecured Loan Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, such addition is requested to be deleted. 5 9. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee made

SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 20(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

40A(3). Therefore, all depended upon the manner of making the estimate. If it had been made in a way which covered the entire position regarding income and expenditure, naturally there would not be any scope for further deductions. 10.3 In view of the above and after considering the facts in totality, we do not find any infirmity

THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(5),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. PANCHDEEP CONSULTANTS,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ground number 3 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed

40A(3) of the Act on the addition of unexplained expenditure of lane advances without appreciating the fact that the lanes is not a capital assets in die case of assessee but a revenue expenditure. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing

AMARPADMA CREDITS PRIVATE LIMITED,JODHPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: MRS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

68. The addition so sustained may kindly be deleted. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance for Rs.25,000/- out of office expenses invoking provisions of section 40A

INCOME TAX OFFICER, VEJAPUR vs. DARSHAN ORNA LIMITED, NAVRANGPURA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1606/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Income Tax Officer Darshan Orna Limited बनाम/ Vejalpur 102, Shri Balaju Paragon V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 015 C.G. Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aadcd 7142 E अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that it was maintaining regular books of accounts which were duly audited under the Companies Act, 2013 as well as under section 44AB of the Act, without

THE ITO, WARD-4(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. MADHAV ORGANISORS PVT.LTD., BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

40A(3) of the Act, being in the nature of capital expenditure and illegal expenditure. 13. Both the learned AR and the DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below to the extent favourable to them. 14. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The facts of the case

THE ITO, WARD-4(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. MADHAV ORGANISORS PVT.LTD., BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

40A(3) of the Act, being in the nature of capital expenditure and illegal expenditure. 13. Both the learned AR and the DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below to the extent favourable to them. 14. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The facts of the case

M/S. MADHAV ORGANIZERS PVT.LTD.,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(4),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

40A(3) of the Act, being in the nature of capital expenditure and illegal expenditure. 13. Both the learned AR and the DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below to the extent favourable to them. 14. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The facts of the case

THE ITO, WARD-1(4),, BARODA vs. M/S. KOTEL PROPERTIES PVT.LTD., BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

40A(3) of the Act, being in the nature of capital expenditure and illegal expenditure. 13. Both the learned AR and the DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below to the extent favourable to them. 14. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The facts of the case