ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C,or section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139 or (b) determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section 68

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 to Section 69 of the Act. This action of Ld. CIT(A) is illegal and without

SHRI SANDIP BHARATBHAI VADODARIYA,BHAVANAGAR vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-2, BHAVNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddharatha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1144/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Shri Sandip Bharatbhai Vadodariya, D.C.I.T., Jawaharnagar, Paliyad Road, Vs. Circle-2, Botad, Bhavnagar. Bhavnagar.

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or 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)

69 read with section 115BBE of the Act. On this basis, the AO completed the assessment by making additions of Rs.19,83,889 under section 68

FIREFLY ENERGY LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 2871/Ahd/2016 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Firefly Energy Limited, Income Tax Officer, 14. Pahelgaon Bunglow, Vs. Ward-2(1)(3), Judges Bungalow Road, Ahmedabad. Vastrapura, Ahmedabad. C/O. Mehta Lodha & Co. Chartered Accountants, 105, Sakar-1, Near Gandhi Gram Rly. Station, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aabca6692E

section. On the other hand, the legislature has cast the onus on the assessee to explain the source of money falling within the ambit of s. 68 or s. 69

HEMANT GORDHANBHAI PATEL,NADIAD vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN., VADODARA

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68 of the Act instead of section 69 of the Act. This itself goes to show the mala fides

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

68 of the Act of Rs. 1,69,20,000/-. With C.O.No.169/Ahd/2019 Asstt. Year 2010-11 3 4. Your Respondent craves right to add, amend, alter, modify, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of cross objection. 3. The assessee in the CO has challenged the virus of the notice issued under section

NARANBHAI SAMATBHAI BHARWAD THROUGH LEGAL HEIR DEVRAJBHAI NARANBHAI BHARWAD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Tr Senthil Kumar

69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139, or (b) determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section 68

ARVINDBHAI PUNABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Accordingly accepted in principle, and the issue is restored to the\nAssessing Officer for fresh adjudication in terms of directions\nabove.\n25. In the combined result, the appeal of the assessee ...

68 was technically inapplicable. In our considered\nview, the addition is sustainable in substance under the broader\nprovisions of the Act, including section 69

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. SARTHAV BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 908/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Sarthav Builders, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. B-1, Abhishree Complex, Ahmedabad. Opp. Star Bazar, Satellite, Ahmedabad. Pan: Abffs3812C

68 of the Act. 4. The necessary facts to be stated in brief for the purpose of the adjudication of the impugned appeal are that the assessee in the present case is a partnership firm and engaged in the business as builder, developer, society organizer and scheme organization. There was a search and seizure operation under section

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. STHAPATYA SHILP CONSTRUCTION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 907/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.170/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Sthapatya Shilp Construction, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 2, Abhiraj Complex, Ahmedabad. 68-B, Swastic Society, Ahmedabad. Pan: Abffs2922P

69,31,41,997/- only. Out of such receipt, a sum of ₹68,86,46,970/- was deposited in different banks accounts of different persons, used for personal expenses or used for arranging the accommodation entries. Such deposit of cash was ultimately utilized for the purchase of lands by the different persons. The entries reflected in the excel sheet

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

68 of the ActofRs.,4,60,33,000/-. 3. Your Respondent craves right to add, amend, alter, modify, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of cross objection. 3. The assessee in the CO has challenged the virus of the notice issued under section 148 of the Act on the reasoning that there

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

69,50,307/- under section 68 of the Act being bogus booking advance. ITA No.2130&2131/Ahd/2017 & ITA No. 398/Ahd/2018

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

69,50,307/- under section 68 of the Act being bogus booking advance. ITA No.2130&2131/Ahd/2017 & ITA No. 398/Ahd/2018

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

69,50,307/- under section 68 of the Act being bogus booking advance. ITA No.2130&2131/Ahd/2017 & ITA No. 398/Ahd/2018

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

69,50,307/- under section 68 of the Act being bogus booking advance. ITA No.2130&2131/Ahd/2017 & ITA No. 398/Ahd/2018

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

69,31,41,997/- only. Out of such receipt, a sum of ₹68,86,46,970/- was deposited in different banks accounts of different persons, used for personal expenses and used for arranging the accommodation entries. Such deposit of cash was ultimately utilized for the purchase of lands by the different persons. The entries reflected in the excel sheet