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

69B can be made. Admittedly, in case of assesse no such material is available. 18. There were found certain loose papers/diaries containing the noting of certain amounts which cannot be equated as an evidence under the provision of section 34 of the Evidence Act, to draw an inference that there was unexplained investment made by the assessee. As such

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

69B can be made. Admittedly, in case of assesse no such material is available. 18. There were found certain loose papers/diaries containing the noting of certain amounts which cannot be equated as an evidence under the provision of section 34 of the Evidence Act, to draw an inference that there was unexplained investment made by the assessee. As such

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

69B can be made. Admittedly, in case of assesse no such material is available. 18. There were found certain loose papers/diaries containing the noting of certain amounts which cannot be equated as an evidence under the provision of section 34 of the Evidence Act, to draw an inference that there was unexplained investment made by the assessee. As such

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

69B can be made. Admittedly, in case of assesse no such material is available. 18. There were found certain loose papers/diaries containing the noting of certain amounts which cannot be equated as an evidence under the provision of section 34 of the Evidence Act, to draw an inference that there was unexplained investment made by the assessee. As such

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

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

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

69B of the I. T. Act, when the seized document itself proves that the assessee had made investment of Rs.1,35,00,000/- (altogether Rs.5,68,00,000/- for different years) in the purchase of land for A.Y.2014-15.” 9. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is an educational institution registered under section

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

69B of the I. T. Act, when the seized document itself proves that the assessee had made investment of Rs.1,35,00,000/- (altogether Rs.5,68,00,000/- for different years) in the purchase of land for A.Y.2014-15.” 9. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is an educational institution registered under section

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

69B of the I. T. Act, when the seized document itself proves that the assessee had made investment of Rs.1,35,00,000/- (altogether Rs.5,68,00,000/- for different years) in the purchase of land for A.Y.2014-15.” 9. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is an educational institution registered under section

AKAR LAMINATORS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1) (ASSTT. ORDER PASSING AUTHORITY) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1) (CURRENT JURISDICTION), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

68 of the Act and not under section 69B of the Act i.e. unexplained investment. Accordingly, we are of the view

AKAR LAMINATORS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1) (ASTT. ORDER PASSSING AUTHORITY) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1) (CURRENT JURISDICTION), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

68 of the Act and not under section 69B of the Act i.e. unexplained investment. Accordingly, we are of the view

ARROW CLOTHING PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

Sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D. The same was amended by the 2nd Amendment Act; w.e.f. 01.04.2017, enhancing

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

68 is not directly applicable, unexplained cash or credits may be taxed as deemed income under sections 69 or 69B

SANDIP B. PADSALA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) For Adjudication. 3. The Ld. Pr Cit Erred On Facts & In Law In Holding That The Assessing Officer Erred In Granting Deduction Of Interest Of Rs. 11,70,726/- Without Appreciating That The Appellant Had Not Claimed Deduction Of The Same While Preparing Return Of Income. The Appellant Craves Permission To Add, Alter, Amend Or Withdraw Any Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal Either Before Or During The Course Of Rearing Of The Appeal.”

sections 69, 69A, 69B & 69C in view of the scheme of those provisions. 5.2 In view of the above, it is seen that it is a settled proposition of law that no deduction /allowance is allowable against such unexplained cash credit which is considered as income of the assessee. In the present facts, during the course of assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(1) VADODARA, VADODARA vs. DAMODARDAS MOHANLAL CHOKSHI, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer made addition on account of wrong method of valuation considering Section 69B

CHANDRAKANT VALLABHBHAI KOLADIA,YUG CO-OP, HSG SOCIETY vs. PCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 VADODARA, AAYAKAR BHAVAN

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or In The Course Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

69B of the Act always lies with the assessee. The assessee failed to submit details such as names/identity of the sellers from whom chemicals were purchased for the trading, when it was purchased, purchase bills, mode of payment for such purchases, source of payment for such purchases etc and names/identity of the purchasers to whom chemicals were sold

ADINATH LEASING AND FINANCE P LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Memebr & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr

69B. read with section 148. of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Undisclosed investments (Reassessment) - Assessment year 2011-12 - During year, assessee sold a land to two individuals for consideration of Rs. 1.46 crores and filed its return declaring same as capital gain - Same was processed under section 143(3) and an assessment order was passed - After four years