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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V. Mahadeokar

69A of the Act 5 Assessed 11,16,69,870/- 10,32,34,740/- 8,37,42,940/- Income in Rs. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeals before the CIT(A), challenging both the validity of the reopening of assessments under section 147 and the additions made under sections 68

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V. Mahadeokar

69A of the Act 5 Assessed 11,16,69,870/- 10,32,34,740/- 8,37,42,940/- Income in Rs. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeals before the CIT(A), challenging both the validity of the reopening of assessments under section 147 and the additions made under sections 68

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

69A of the Act\n2,00,00,000/-\nAssessed Income in Rs.\n11,16,69,870/-\n10,32,34,740/-\n8,37,42,940/-\n4. The assessee carried the matter in appeals before the CIT(A), challenging\nboth the validity of the reopening of assessments under section 147 and the\nadditions made under sections 68

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. JEWEL WORLD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.63/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Jewel World बनाम/ Income-Tax 5, Balaji Heights V/S. Circle-2(1)(1) Swagat Cross Road Ahmedabad – 380 015 Nr. Lal Bungalows Cg Road, Ahmedabad-380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Aajfj 5833 H अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”], Dated 06.12.2023, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Whereby The Cit(A) Deleted The Addition Of Rs.5,61,85,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”]. Asst.Cit Vs. Jewel World Asst. Year : 2017-18

Section 68 or 69A of the Act. - DCIT v. Bawa Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi), where it was held

SHRI UMIYA COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. ,1, SENETARY ROAD , KUTCHHI PATIDAR VADI, PETLAD TAL. PETLAD DIST. ANAND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), PETLAD

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

69A of the Act., however the AO made addition u/s 68 of the I.T. Act. The assessee has satisfied the requirement of 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

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return

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 or section 69A

M/S. 9TH STREET ARCHITECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

69A and the special rate of tax under section 115BBE. The CIT(A) also placed reliance on Manoj Aggarwal v. DCIT (2008) 27 CCH 0557 (Del) (SB); 11 DTR 1 (Del), where it was held that even if section 68

SWASTIK DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-2018 Swastik Developers The Ito, Ward-3(3)(5), 21, Swastik House Vs. Ahmedabad. B/H.Sardar Patel Stadium Ahmedabad. Pan : Acyfs 0641 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Prashant Shrivastav, Ar Assessee By : Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/08/2025

68 or section 69A in the firm’s hands is not sustainable. 5.3 The learned Departmental Representative (DR), on the other

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 rather it is a case where the assessee has made the submissions in accordance with the provisions of section 69 of the Act. Therefore, we find it difficult to convince ourselves with the contention of the learned AR for the assessee. Accordingly, we reject the contention of the learned AR for the assessee

PARK PARADISE,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member\nAnd Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nITA Nos.207 & 208/Ahd/2022\nAssessment Year 2017-18\nPark Plaza\nNr. Saurabh Park,\nGotri-Samata, Road,\nGotri Vadodara\nGujarat-390021\nPAN: AAPFP6647K\nVs\nThe PCIT,\nVadodara-1,\nVadodara\nPark Paradise\nPlot No. 75,\nNr. Billa Bong School,\nVadsar, Vadodara\nGujarat-390010\nPAN: AASFP0787D\n(Appellant)\nVs\nThe PCIT,\nVadodara-1,\nVadodara\n(Respondent)\nAssessee Represented: Shri M.J. Shah, Adv. &\nS

68 section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D,\nif such income

PARK PLAZA,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member\nAnd Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\n\nITA Nos.207 & 208/Ahd/2022\nAssessment Year 2017-18\n\n| Park Plaza\n| Nr. Saurabh Park,\n| Gotri-Samata, Road,\n| Gotri Vadodara\n| Gujarat-390021\n| PAN: AAPFP6647K\n| Park Paradise\n| Plot No. 75,\n| Nr. Billa Bong School,\n| Vadsar, Vadodara\n| Gujarat-390010\n| PAN: AASFP0787D\n| (Appellant)\n\n| The PCIT,\n| Vadodara-1,\nVs Vadodara\n\n| Vs The PCIT,\n| Vadodara-1,\n| Vadodara\n| (Respondent)\n\nA

68 section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D,\nif such income

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

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

sections 68 and 69A of the Act in respect of large deposits aggregating to Rs.97.53 crore for A.Y. 2013–14 and Rs. 88.66 crore

MANISH RANJAN, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAWAN ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA, ELLISBRIDGE AHMEDABAD GUJARAT

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

sections 68 and 69A of the Act in respect of large deposits aggregating to Rs.97.53 crore for A.Y. 2013–14 and Rs. 88.66 crore

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

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

sections 68 and 69A of the Act in respect of large deposits aggregating to Rs.97.53 crore for A.Y. 2013–14 and Rs. 88.66 crore

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

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

sections 68 and 69A of the Act in respect of large deposits aggregating to Rs.97.53 crore for A.Y. 2013–14 and Rs. 88.66 crore

DUSHYANT SHANTILAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

68), unexplained investment (Section 69), suppressed sales (Section 69A), and cash deposits during demonetization (Section 69A). The assessee