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

9. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee made ground-wise submissions. 10. In respect of Ground No.1, challenging the addition of Rs.32,61,500/- under section 69A of the Act, the AR submitted that the assessee had maintained two sets of cash books, namely, the main cash book and the petty cash

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)

40A(3). Disallowance so sustained may kindly be deleted.” 2 Amarpadma Credits Pvt Ltd Vs. ITO AY : 2017-18 3. Before us, the counsel for the appellant-assessee submitted that it shall not be pressing for ground numbers 1, 3 and 4 of the appeal filed by the assessee and accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as not pressed. Grounds

SHAILESHKUMAR DAHYABHAI PATEL,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(2) (NOW DCIT CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, GUJARAT, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, Ground Number 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68 of the Act, which has been deleted by us, the disallowance of interest cannot survive. Accordingly, Ground No. 6 is also allowed. 16. With respect to Ground Number 7 (disallowance of Interest expenses of Rs. 35.21 lakhs), the counsel for the assessee submitted that this interest payment is with respect to loans taken in earlier assessment years. Further

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

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

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-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

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

40A(9) of the Act. ITA No.4565/Ahd/2007 and 4 Other appeals(By Revenue) & 80/Ahd/2008 and 7 Other appeals (By Assessee ) Asstt. Yeasr 2004-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09, 09-10 7 6.1 From the preceding discussion we note that there is no evidence brought on record by the AO that the assessee has made payment

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),(TPO), BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

40A(9) of the Act. ITA No.4565/Ahd/2007 and 4 Other appeals(By Revenue) & 80/Ahd/2008 and 7 Other appeals (By Assessee ) Asstt. Yeasr 2004-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09, 09-10 7 6.1 From the preceding discussion we note that there is no evidence brought on record by the AO that the assessee has made payment

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

40A(9) of the Act. ITA No.4565/Ahd/2007 and 4 Other appeals(By Revenue) & 80/Ahd/2008 and 7 Other appeals (By Assessee ) Asstt. Yeasr 2004-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09, 09-10 7 6.1 From the preceding discussion we note that there is no evidence brought on record by the AO that the assessee has made payment

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NABROS PHARMA LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

40A(9) of the Act. ITA No.4565/Ahd/2007 and 4 Other appeals(By Revenue) & 80/Ahd/2008 and 7 Other appeals (By Assessee ) Asstt. Yeasr 2004-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09, 09-10 7 6.1 From the preceding discussion we note that there is no evidence brought on record by the AO that the assessee has made payment

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE CIT-I,, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

40A(9) of the Act. ITA No.4565/Ahd/2007 and 4 Other appeals(By Revenue) & 80/Ahd/2008 and 7 Other appeals (By Assessee ) Asstt. Yeasr 2004-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09, 09-10 7 6.1 From the preceding discussion we note that there is no evidence brought on record by the AO that the assessee has made payment

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,, VADODARA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

40A(9) of the Act. ITA No.4565/Ahd/2007 and 4 Other appeals(By Revenue) & 80/Ahd/2008 and 7 Other appeals (By Assessee ) Asstt. Yeasr 2004-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09, 09-10 7 6.1 From the preceding discussion we note that there is no evidence brought on record by the AO that the assessee has made payment

M/S. SOUTH SHOURNE CORPORATION (INDIA),,BARODA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCEL-2(2),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.269/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2004-2005 M/S South Shourne Corporation(India) Acit, 931, Gidc Estate, Circle-2(2), V Makarpura, Baroda. S. Baroda.

9 account. Thus we are of the view the identity of the lender Shri P.R. Pankhania cannot be doubted in the given facts & circumstances. 9.5 In view of above we hold that the assessee has discharged his duty by furnishing the identity proof of the lenders. The 2nd requirement of the assessee is to prove the genuineness

THE ACIT., PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. SHIV REFOILS AND CAKES, CHANSAMA, PATAN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1672/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Acit Shiv Refoils & Cakes बनाम/ Patan Circle, Plot No.2 Gidc Estate V/S. Patan – 384 265 Chanasma, Patan

9. We have considered the contentions of both the parties and note the contents of remand report from the AO. Section 68 of the Act requires the assessee to explain the nature and source of any sum credited in their books. The assessee must prove the identity of the creditor, the genuineness of the transaction, and the creditworthiness

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:

40A(2)(b) of the Act. It was contended that the purchases recorded in the books were supported by corresponding stock entries. The assessee further submitted that there were no adverse comments in the Tax Audit Report, and the auditors had not pointed out any suppression of income or inflation of stock. It was also submitted that statutory reports

SHRI ALTAFHUSEN M. SIDDIKI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(4), 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

68 of the Act. 4. That the CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs.27,050/- being 10% of the interest on vehicle loan and depreciation on such vehicle. ITA Nos.577/Ahd/2012 & ITANo.969/Ahd/2015 Altafhusen M. Siddiki For AY 2008-09 & 2010-11 4 5. That the CIT(A) erred

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

68 of the Act. 4. That the CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs.27,050/- being 10% of the interest on vehicle loan and depreciation on such vehicle. ITA Nos.577/Ahd/2012 & ITANo.969/Ahd/2015 Altafhusen M. Siddiki For AY 2008-09 & 2010-11 4 5. That the CIT(A) erred