THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. MAYORA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS "INBISCO INDIA PVT. LTD.), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Department are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

58, Ahmedabad Gundlapochampally Village, Hakimpet, S.O. Tirumalagiri, Hyderabad and Plot No. SM-9/5, Sanand-II, GIDC Industrial State, Ahmedabad, Sanand, Ahmedabad-381170 [PAN No.AABCI8732P] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Respondent by: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT D.R. Date of Hearing 18.09.2024 16.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. MAYORA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Department are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

58, Ahmedabad Gundlapochampally Village, Hakimpet, S.O. Tirumalagiri, Hyderabad and Plot No. SM-9/5, Sanand-II, GIDC Industrial State, Ahmedabad, Sanand, Ahmedabad-381170 [PAN No.AABCI8732P] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Respondent by: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT D.R. Date of Hearing 18.09.2024 16.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S.DHARMEN MARBLE & STONE, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 794/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.171/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Dharmen Marble & Stone, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aabfd5172B

section 68 of the Act in the hands of the assessee. 4.1 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

68,93,96,668/- instead of deleting the same in entirety. 50. There was a survey operation under section 133A of the Act dated 17th October 2013 at the premises of the assessee. In the course of survey operation, a diary marked as annexure AS-2 was found wherein the construction cost as on the date of survey

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/- instead of deleting the same in entirety. 50. There was a survey operation under section 133A of the Act dated 17th October 2013 at the premises of the assessee. In the course of survey operation, a diary marked as annexure AS-2 was found wherein the construction cost as on the date of survey

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/- instead of deleting the same in entirety. 50. There was a survey operation under section 133A of the Act dated 17th October 2013 at the premises of the assessee. In the course of survey operation, a diary marked as annexure AS-2 was found wherein the construction cost as on the date of survey

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/- instead of deleting the same in entirety. 50. There was a survey operation under section 133A of the Act dated 17th October 2013 at the premises of the assessee. In the course of survey operation, a diary marked as annexure AS-2 was found wherein the construction cost as on the date of survey

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

section 68 of the Act. 31.2 Now the balance amount of ₹ 3,58,729 ( Rs. 53,57,640 minus

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 amounting to " 63,58,700/- being the total amount of cash deposits made in the bank

ATIRESH SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(3)ITO WARD 1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

58,68,368/- was added under Section 68 of the Act. 3. In appeal, with regards to addition of Rs.49

SHRI PRAVINCHANDRA R PATEL,VADODARA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

section 132 of the Act. 108. The facts of the case are that there was the search and seizure operation under the provisions of section 132 of the Act at the premises of the assessee dated 13th November 2014. Accordingly, the proceedings for the assessment under the provisions of section 153A of the Act were initiated

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

section 132 of the Act. 108. The facts of the case are that there was the search and seizure operation under the provisions of section 132 of the Act at the premises of the assessee dated 13th November 2014. Accordingly, the proceedings for the assessment under the provisions of section 153A of the Act were initiated

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

section 132 of the Act. 108. The facts of the case are that there was the search and seizure operation under the provisions of section 132 of the Act at the premises of the assessee dated 13th November 2014. Accordingly, the proceedings for the assessment under the provisions of section 153A of the Act were initiated

SHAUNAK SHAILESH SHAH ,9, NEELKANTH BUNGLOW, PRAHLADNAGAR, SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 15(4),, 7TH FLOOR, NATURE VIEW BUILDING, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD 380009

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1421/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Shaunak Shailesh Shah, I.T.O., 9, Neelkanth Bunglow, Vs. Ward-15(4), Prahladnagar, Ahmedabad. Satellite, Ahmedabad.

68 of the Income Tax Act. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee is an Individual. The assessee in the year under consideration derived his income from salary. The assessee during the year had deposited the cash to the tune of Rs. 1,11,26,300.00 and cheques

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. RAJESH MALLEABLES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 68 of the Act by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Precision Finance (P) Ltd reported in 208 ITR 465 wherein it was held as under: “It was for the assessee to prove the identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. On the facts of this case

THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. EAM FRUITS LLP, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1835/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2016-2017 I.T.O, Eam Fruits Llp, Ward-7(2)(2), Vs. 23, New Fruit Market, Ahmedabad. Naroda Road, Naroda, Ahmedabad-380025. Pan: Aadfe6711B

section 68 of the Act after ignoring the debit entries. To our mind the debit entries cannot be set aside for determining the income of the assessee. 21.11 In view of the above, we are of the opinion that, once repayment of the loan has been established based on the documentary evidence, the credit entries cannot be looked into

SMT. PARAMADEVI TEKRIWAL, ,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(5),, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. Paramadevi Tekriwal, The Income-Tax Officer, D-143, Kaliyabid, Bhavnagar Vs Ward 1(5), Pan : Addpt 3030 F Bhavnagar अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad (“Cit(A)” In Short) Dated 09.07.2018. 2. The Relevant Facts Of The Case Giving Rise To This Appeal Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Who Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Originally On 16.03.2014. Although The Said Return Was Originally Accepted Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short), The Assessment Was Subsequently Reopened By The Assessing Officer On The Basis Of Information Received From Investigation Wing Of The Income-Tax Department That The Long Term Capital Gains Of Rs.1,13,53,982/- Arising From The Sale Of Equity Shares Of Kgn Enterprise Ltd. For A Consideration Of Rs.1,13,87,902/- Claimed As Exempt In The Return Of Income Was Bogus & It Was Actually An Accommodation Entry. The Assessing Officer Accordingly Issued A Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act To Smt. Paramadevi Tekriwal Vs. Ito Ay : 2013-14 2

Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. The assessing officer held that the aforesaid transactions of purchase of two Smt. Paramadevi Tekriwal Vs. ITO AY : 2013-14 12 penny stock shares for Rs.60,000/-, the merger of the companies with a new company and the sale of the shares for Rs.11,58,930/- fell within the ambit

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.

68 of the Act. 5.3 The Ld.CIT (A) called for the remand report from the AO who rejected the confirmations letters filed by the assessee vide letter dated 19/03/2013. Ld.CIT (A) after considering the submission of the assessee and remand report of the AO held that the assessee failed to justify the creditworthiness of the lenders and accordingly confirmed