GITABEN DINESHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 68 where the assessee failed to establish Gitaben Dineshbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 9– the identity and creditworthiness of counterparties and could not substantiate the genuineness of steep price rise in shares of a company with no commercial worth. The ratio of this judgment squarely applies to the present case, as the assessee has completely failed

ABHAYKUMAR SEVANTILAL SANGHAVI,DEESA vs. OLD JURISDICTION- CIRCLE,PALANPUR NEW JURISDICTION-CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1367/Ahd/2024 & 1368/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Abhaykumar Sevantilal Acit Circle, Palanpur बनाम/ Sanghavi [Old Jurisdiction-Circle, V/S. Sanghavi Brothers Palanpur. 1St Floor, Swastik Bldg New Jurisdiction-Circle, Nr. City Police Station Gandhinagar.] Nr. Dena Bank, Main Bazar Deesa – 385 535 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afbps 1660 L (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Pertain To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2016-17 & 2017-18. Since The Issues Involved Are Common & Connected, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. The Appeals Arise Out Of The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The

430/- Agricultural Income Rs. 2,69,907/- Rs. 3,26,769/- Date of AO Order 30/12/2018 18/12/2019 Section under which AO Order Passed 143(3) 143(3) Disallowance u/s 14A Rs. 14,042/- Not applicable Proportionate Interest Disallowance Rs. 38,36,692/- Rs. 44,06,456/- Unexplained Cash Credits (Sec. 68

ABHAYKUMAR SEVANTILAL SANGHAVI,DEESA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE- PALANPUR , PALANPUR

Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1367/Ahd/2024 & 1368/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Abhaykumar Sevantilal Acit Circle, Palanpur बनाम/ Sanghavi [Old Jurisdiction-Circle, V/S. Sanghavi Brothers Palanpur. 1St Floor, Swastik Bldg New Jurisdiction-Circle, Nr. City Police Station Gandhinagar.] Nr. Dena Bank, Main Bazar Deesa – 385 535 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afbps 1660 L (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Pertain To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2016-17 & 2017-18. Since The Issues Involved Are Common & Connected, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. The Appeals Arise Out Of The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The

430/- Agricultural Income Rs. 2,69,907/- Rs. 3,26,769/- Date of AO Order 30/12/2018 18/12/2019 Section under which AO Order Passed 143(3) 143(3) Disallowance u/s 14A Rs. 14,042/- Not applicable Proportionate Interest Disallowance Rs. 38,36,692/- Rs. 44,06,456/- Unexplained Cash Credits (Sec. 68

THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADINATH ORNAMENTS PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

68, taxable under\nsection 115BBE. The books of account were also rejected under section 145(3),\nand GP was estimated on a higher rate, resulting in an additional addition of\nRs.4,51,379/-. Further, disallowance of Rs.2,10,430

SUSTAINABLE SPINNING AND COMMODITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,LIMBDI vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

430/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68, read with Section 115BBE of the Act. ITA Nos. 145&416/Ahd/2024

SUSTAINBLE SPINNING AND COMMODITIES PVT.LTD.,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE ACIT., CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

430/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68, read with Section 115BBE of the Act. ITA Nos. 145&416/Ahd/2024

M/S. SHRI RANG INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. DCIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

68 of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 6. As regards additional ground, the Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer while reopening the assessment has reviewed the original assessment order and, therefore, the review of the original assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 HIMATNAGAR, HIMATNAGAR vs. NEW SURROAD GINNING AND PRESSING FACTORY, IDAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed, whereas, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta1.आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.930/Ahd/2024 2.आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.924/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18) 1. New Surroad Ginning & 1. The Ito बनाम/ Pressing Factory Ward-2, V/S. At Post Surroad Himatnagar 383 001 Tal: Idar Himatnagar – 383 430 Dist. Sabarkantha 2. The Ito 2. New Surroad Ginning & Ward-1, Himatnagar Pressing Factory Himatnagar – 383 430 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aakfn 5184 C (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tej Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2026

430 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AAKFN 5184 C (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Tej Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 30/01/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The captioned are cross-appeals; one by the assessee

NEW SURROAD GINNING AND PRESSING FACTORY,SABARKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-2, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed, whereas, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta1.आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.930/Ahd/2024 2.आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.924/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18) 1. New Surroad Ginning & 1. The Ito बनाम/ Pressing Factory Ward-2, V/S. At Post Surroad Himatnagar 383 001 Tal: Idar Himatnagar – 383 430 Dist. Sabarkantha 2. The Ito 2. New Surroad Ginning & Ward-1, Himatnagar Pressing Factory Himatnagar – 383 430 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aakfn 5184 C (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tej Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2026

430 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AAKFN 5184 C (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Tej Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 30/01/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The captioned are cross-appeals; one by the assessee

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. ALPHA NIPPON INNOVATIVES LTD.,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1360/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 D.C.I.T, Alpha Nippon Innovatives Ltd., Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. (Formerly Known As Tim Engineering Ahmedabad. Technologies Pvt. Ltd.) Survey No.310, Vii, Bhamsara, Bavla, Bhamsara, Gujarat-382230. Pan: Aacct5088N

section 68 of the Income Tax Act does not arise. The appellant has submitted that identical issue arose for consideration of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Sunbarg Tradelink (P) Ltd. v ITO reported in 2017 146 DTR (Guj) 182. In that case on the basisi of the information received from the investigation wing

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68 of the Act. The addition is required to be deleted. 4.1 In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition relying upon statement of Mr.Chirag Thakkar, ex employee and Bharat Padiya, ex director of Dishman Group and such statements are already disowned by Dishman Group

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68 of the Act. The addition is required to be deleted. 4.1 In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition relying upon statement of Mr.Chirag Thakkar, ex employee and Bharat Padiya, ex director of Dishman Group and such statements are already disowned by Dishman Group

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68 of the Act. The addition is required to be deleted. 4.1 In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition relying upon statement of Mr.Chirag Thakkar, ex employee and Bharat Padiya, ex director of Dishman Group and such statements are already disowned by Dishman Group

SAVITABEN MANGALDAS TRUST,,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AHMEDABAD

In the result ground no. 1 and 2 raised by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

430/- and Rs.4,87,686/-; respectively imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961; in short “the Act”. 1.1 Heard both the parties. Case file perused. ITA Nos.3066 & 3067/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2007-08 Page 2 of 14 2. It emerges at the outset that the above impugned penalties pertain to quantum additions of unexplained unsecured loans

SURENDRA MANGALDAS SHAH,(HUF),AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-10(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result ground no. 1 and 2 raised by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

430/- and Rs.4,87,686/-; respectively imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961; in short “the Act”. 1.1 Heard both the parties. Case file perused. ITA Nos.3066 & 3067/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2007-08 Page 2 of 14 2. It emerges at the outset that the above impugned penalties pertain to quantum additions of unexplained unsecured loans

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby\nallowed

68 of the Act. The addition is required to be deleted.\n4.1 In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the\nLd. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition relying upon statement of\nMr.Chirag Thakkar, ex employee and Bharat Padiya, ex director of Dishman\nGroup and such statements are already disowned by Dishman Group

GANESH PLANTATIONS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as cross appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 68 of the Act and held that credit of Rs.4 Crore received by the assessee through banking channel during F.Y. 2010-11 from M/s. Sunderdeep Builders lacks in bonafide and nature and source of such credit in books is unsatisfactory. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.4Crore was added to the income previously assessed and brought within the ambit

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. GANESH PLANTATIONS LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as cross appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 68 of the Act and held that credit of Rs.4 Crore received by the assessee through banking channel during F.Y. 2010-11 from M/s. Sunderdeep Builders lacks in bonafide and nature and source of such credit in books is unsatisfactory. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.4Crore was added to the income previously assessed and brought within the ambit