H K ISPAT PVT. LTD.,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

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

M/S. VISHAL ENGINEERS & GALVANIZERS,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-6,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

68,000/- on 05.01.2011. Therefore, there was an increase in the value of land to the tune of Rs.28,87,84,000/- due to its revaluation credited to the partners capital account in the profit sharing ratio. The appellant firm got converted into Private Limited Co. as also found by the Learned AR upon perusal of the record before

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VISHAL ENGINEERING & GALVANIZERS,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

68,000/- on 05.01.2011. Therefore, there was an increase in the value of land to the tune of Rs.28,87,84,000/- due to its revaluation credited to the partners capital account in the profit sharing ratio. The appellant firm got converted into Private Limited Co. as also found by the Learned AR upon perusal of the record before

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-6,, AHMEDABAD vs. VISHAL ENGINEERING & GALVANIZERS,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

68,000/- on 05.01.2011. Therefore, there was an increase in the value of land to the tune of Rs.28,87,84,000/- due to its revaluation credited to the partners capital account in the profit sharing ratio. The appellant firm got converted into Private Limited Co. as also found by the Learned AR upon perusal of the record before

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRENA S SUTARIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 796/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.172/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., Shrena S. Sutaria, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 8, Amrashagun Bunglows, Ahmedabad. Nr. Hathisingh Park, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Asqps7606E

section 68 of the Act. With C.O.No.172/Ahd/2019 Asstt. Year 2010-11 20 22. The learned CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under: The appellant contended that the AO in Para 8.5.1 at Page No.24 of the assessment order has observed that "It is noticed that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHREYASI DHARMEN SUTARIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 797/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.173/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., Shreyasi Dharmen Sutaria, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. 2Nd Address: 8, Amrashagun Bunglows, Nr. Hathisingh Park, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Awops1881R

section 68 of the Act in the hands of the assessee. 3.2 Based on the above, the AO analyzed the bank statements for the period beginning from 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2015 of different persons whose names were appearing in such excel sheet. As per the AO, all the names of the persons appearing on the excel

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

68 of the Act cannot be invoked in the given facts and circumstances. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere in the finding of the Ld. CIT-A. Hence, the ground of appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed. 43. In the result, appeal filed the Revenue is dismissed Coming to ITA No 2131/Ahd/2017

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

68 of the Act cannot be invoked in the given facts and circumstances. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere in the finding of the Ld. CIT-A. Hence, the ground of appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed. 43. In the result, appeal filed the Revenue is dismissed Coming to ITA No 2131/Ahd/2017

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

68 of the Act cannot be invoked in the given facts and circumstances. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere in the finding of the Ld. CIT-A. Hence, the ground of appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed. 43. In the result, appeal filed the Revenue is dismissed Coming to ITA No 2131/Ahd/2017

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

68 of the Act cannot be invoked in the given facts and circumstances. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere in the finding of the Ld. CIT-A. Hence, the ground of appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed. 43. In the result, appeal filed the Revenue is dismissed Coming to ITA No 2131/Ahd/2017

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. BHAVESHKUMAR GIRISHBHAI BHANDARI, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

Appeal is allowed in ITA 978/Ahd/2025 and ITA\n978/Ahd/2025 as well

48,37,350/-. This included an addition of Rs.\n4,86,42,214/- under section 68 of the Act for unexplained

ANKIT VIJAYKUMAR JAIN,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

48,02,549/- made by ld. AO by wrongly invoking section 68 of the Act in respect of bank

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

Section 68 of the Act for Rs.29,82,89,600/- on the ground of violation of natural justice. 4. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee in the present case is a private limited company. The assessee in the year under consideration has issued 106532 equity shares having face value at Rs.10 and premium of Rs.2790/- per share aggregating

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

68 of the Act lies upon the assessee. The relevant extract of observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT (supra) reads as under: It is well established that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by the assessee

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

section 68 of the Act. However, the assessee failed to do so insofar the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the parties is concern. The learned DR in support of his contention has also made reference to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. NRA Iron & Steel

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. GIRISHKUMAR AMRATLAL BHANDARI HUF, HIMATNAGAR, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed and the order of\nthe Assessing Officer is restored

48,37,350/-. This included an addition of Rs.\n4,86,42,214/- under section 68 of the Act for unexplained

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. BHAVESHKUMAR GIRISHBHAI BHANDARI, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed and the order of\nthe Assessing Officer is restored

48,37,350/-. This included an addition of Rs.\n4,86,42,214/- under section 68 of the Act for unexplained

RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

48,200/ provisions of section 68 /69A in - Rs. Date of CIT(A)'s Common Order 25.04.2022 25.04.2022 Additions