DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA vs. NEOTECH EDUCATION FOUNDATION, VADODARA

68 to 69D of the Act. Thus the presumption provided under section 132 (4A) of the Act does not affix

THE DCIT-CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE SIDDHI INFRABUILD PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V. Mahadeokar

68 or section 69A. This principle is well settled by the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, including the decisions relied upon by the CIT(A). 6.2 In conclusion, it is also pertinent to record that the Assessing Officer has proceeded on a fundamentally incomplete appreciation of the assessee’s books of account

THE DCIT-CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE SIDDHI INFRABUILD PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V. Mahadeokar

68 or section 69A. This principle is well settled by the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, including the decisions relied upon by the CIT(A). 6.2 In conclusion, it is also pertinent to record that the Assessing Officer has proceeded on a fundamentally incomplete appreciation of the assessee’s books of account

THE DCIT-CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE SIDDHI INFRABUILD PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

Accordingly kept open.\n10. All Revenue appeals fail on merits and are dismissed

68 or section 69A. This principle is well\nsettled by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High\nCourts, including the decisions relied upon by the CIT(A).\n6.2\nIn conclusion, it is also pertinent to record that the Assessing Officer\nhas proceeded on a fundamentally incomplete appreciation of the assessee's\nbooks of account

SHAILESH SUBODHCHANDRA JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

4A) are applicable in case of Shri Shirish Shah and not the appellant and since the said burden has not been discharged by Shri Shirish Shah, the disallowance of loss requires to be cancelled/deleted. In view of the above, the impugned addition of Rs. 1,52,20,891/- being loss incurred in trading of shares of Chandni Textile Engineering Industries

SHAILESH SUBODHCHANDRA JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

4A) are applicable in case of Shri Shirish Shah and not the appellant and since the said burden has not been discharged by Shri Shirish Shah, the disallowance of loss requires to be cancelled/deleted. In view of the above, the impugned addition of Rs. 1,52,20,891/- being loss incurred in trading of shares of Chandni Textile Engineering Industries

SHAILESH S. JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

4A) are applicable in case of Shri Shirish Shah and not the appellant and since the said burden has not been discharged by Shri Shirish Shah, the disallowance of loss requires to be cancelled/deleted. In view of the above, the impugned addition of Rs. 1,52,20,891/- being loss incurred in trading of shares of Chandni Textile Engineering Industries

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

68 of the Act. Furthermore, the contents of the seized documents are presumed to be true under the provisions of section 132(4A

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

68 of the Act. Furthermore, the contents of the seized documents are presumed to be true under the provisions of section 132(4A

M/S. KOTEL PROPERTIES 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

68 of the Act. Furthermore, the contents of the seized documents are presumed to be true under the provisions of section 132(4A

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

68 of the Act. Furthermore, the contents of the seized documents are presumed to be true under the provisions of section 132(4A

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

68 of the Act. Furthermore, the contents of the seized documents are presumed to be true under the provisions of section 132(4A

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

68 of the Act. Furthermore, the contents of the seized documents are presumed to be true under the provisions of section 132(4A

M/S. KOTEL PROPERTIES 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

68 of the Act. Furthermore, the contents of the seized documents are presumed to be true under the provisions of section 132(4A

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

68 of the Act. Furthermore, the contents of the seized documents are presumed to be true under the provisions of section 132(4A

M/S. KOTEL PROPERTIES 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

68 of the Act. Furthermore, the contents of the seized documents are presumed to be true under the provisions of section 132(4A

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

68 of the Act. Furthermore, the contents of the seized documents are presumed to be true under the provisions of section 132(4A

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

68 of the Act. Furthermore, the contents of the seized documents are presumed to be true under the provisions of section 132(4A