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

57,640/- as discussed above as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and added total income

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA -HUF, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 795/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.169/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., Dharmenbhai M. Sutaria, Huf Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aafhd1653K

57,000/- fresh receipt of Rs. 1,69,20,000/- and repayment of Rs. 3,17,50,000/- during the year. As such at the yearend, the loan account was converted into advances. All these transaction were carried through banking channel. Accordingly, the assessee prayed to delete the addition made under section 68

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

68,93,96,668/- (Rs. 84.82 -15.88 crores income shown by the assessee ) was added on account of unexplained expenditure to the total income of the assessee. ITA No.2130&2131/Ahd/2017 & ITA No. 398/Ahd/2018 & 547/Ahd/2018 A.Ys. 2012-13&2013-14 & 2014-15 21 56. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT-A. 57. The assessee before

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

68,93,96,668/- (Rs. 84.82 -15.88 crores income shown by the assessee ) was added on account of unexplained expenditure to the total income of the assessee. ITA No.2130&2131/Ahd/2017 & ITA No. 398/Ahd/2018 & 547/Ahd/2018 A.Ys. 2012-13&2013-14 & 2014-15 21 56. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT-A. 57. The assessee before

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

68,93,96,668/- (Rs. 84.82 -15.88 crores income shown by the assessee ) was added on account of unexplained expenditure to the total income of the assessee. ITA No.2130&2131/Ahd/2017 & ITA No. 398/Ahd/2018 & 547/Ahd/2018 A.Ys. 2012-13&2013-14 & 2014-15 21 56. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT-A. 57. The assessee before

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

68,93,96,668/- (Rs. 84.82 -15.88 crores income shown by the assessee ) was added on account of unexplained expenditure to the total income of the assessee. ITA No.2130&2131/Ahd/2017 & ITA No. 398/Ahd/2018 & 547/Ahd/2018 A.Ys. 2012-13&2013-14 & 2014-15 21 56. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT-A. 57. The assessee before

M/S. FLOURISH PUREFOODS PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-2(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. No.518/Ahd/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Flourish Purefoods Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 11-12, Ecs House, Garden View, Tax, Nr. Global Hospital, Bodakdev, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad-380054 Ahmedabad [Pan No.Aadcv2683B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

section 68 of the Act. 11.1 First of all, we find that the assessee has shown an advance in the immediate preceding assessment year as on 31 March 2010 in the name of Shri Kanjibhai Desai amounting to Rs. 23.02 crore. This fact has not been disputed by the AO which is evident from the audited financial statement

JAP AGRO FOODS PVT.LTD.,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(4),, BARODA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 191/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 M/S Jap Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O, Block No.295, Vs. Ward-1(4), Ranu Tal. Padra, Baroda. Vadodara.

57,50,000 as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and added to the total income

M/S. ARIHANT JEWELS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

57,41,811/- I.T.A No. 2341/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 3 M/s. Arihant Jewels vs. ITO During the course of survey, assessee has also disclosed income of Rs. 50 lacs. During the course of assessment on verification of the return of income for the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer observed that assessee has not shown the income declared

VISHAL BALVANTRAI AGARWAL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD -1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.226/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Vishal Balvantrai Agarwal The Pr.Cit बनाम/ 249 New Cloth Market Ahmedabad-1 V/S. O/S. Raipur Gate Ahmedabad – 380 002 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Adbpa 4462 G (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Divyakant Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

57 of the Act. As per CBDT Circulars and guidelines, the AO is required to confine his examination strictly to the issues flagged under limited scrutiny unless approval for expanding the scope is obtained from the competent authority. 7.1. In Sahyadri Agencies Ltd. vs. PCIT, the Hon’ble Kerala High Court dealt with whether the PCIT can invoke Section

CHIRAG NITIN SHAH,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

68 be deleted. With regard to the addition of ₹Rs.,18,175 made under section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment in purchases from M/s Saumil Impex Pvt. Ltd., the Counsel submitted that the assessee had duly recorded this purchase in the books of account, and complete evidences were filed. These included the original purchase invoice from Saumil

SHREYANS S SANGHAVI,DEESA vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE, PALANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 520/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2016-2017 Shreyans S. Sanghavi, A.C.I.T., 1St Floor, Swastik Bldg., Vs. Circle, Nr. City Police Station, Palanpur. Nr. Dena Bank, Main Bazar, Deesa-385535. Pan: Afbps1665R

section 57(Hi) arises only if expenditure has been laid out wholly and exclusively for purpose of earning income which is chargeable under said head 'income from other sources' - Held, yes -Whether since assesses failed to establish nexus between expenditure incurred under various heads including depreciation and had also failed to justify apportionment of expenditure to earning of interest

NARENDRA CHANDUBHAI RAFALIYA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(8), AHMEDABAD

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

section 68 of the Act as it would amount to double taxation. The counsel for the assessee further submitted that insofar as cash deposits of "12,57

PATEL WINES,KHEDA vs. THE DY.CIT, KHEDA CIRCLE, NADIAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

57,653/-. A survey under section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") was conducted on 17.03.2017 at the business premises of the assessee, M/s. Patel Wines. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had deposited substantial cash amounting to ₹1,65,81,880/- in its HDFC Bank account during

SHRI VIR TRANSPORT OPERTORS COPO CREDIT & SERVICE SOCIETY LTD.,DAHOD vs. THE DY. CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 57 of\nthe Act against interest income brought to tax under the head income\nfrom other sources.\n16. It is an undisputed position that the assessee is a registered co-\noperative credit society governed by the Gujarat Co-operative Societies\nAct and is engaged in accepting deposits from members and advancing\ncredit facilities. The earning of interest income

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(4), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI. SURESHCHANDRA SHANTILAL BRAHMBHATT, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Shri. Sureshchandra Shantilal Ward-1(2)(4), Ahmedabad, Brahmbhatt, Room No. 220, V. 4 Shreenath Bangalow Part-2 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. Matrushree Party Plot, Near Sachin Tower, Vejalpur, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad-380005 Ahmedabad-380051, Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Actpb8904H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Tushar Hemani, Sr. Ar & Sh. Parimalsinh Parmar, Ar Revenue By: Sh. Prasad Rao Waghe Annasaheb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.04.2024

68 of the I.T. Act by not considering the facts mentioned by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. 2. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed return of income

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

68 to 69D of the Act. As such, it is the onus of the revenue to bring out the necessary evidence to hold that the assessee has made investments in the impugned land which is unexplained under the provisions of section 69B of the Act. Likewise, the contents of the email having attachments of page 157 and 158 were

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

68 to 69D of the Act. As such, it is the onus of the revenue to bring out the necessary evidence to hold that the assessee has made investments in the impugned land which is unexplained under the provisions of section 69B of the Act. Likewise, the contents of the email having attachments of page 157 and 158 were