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

77 taxmann.com 245, held that noting on loose sheet/diary does carry any evidentiary value under the provision of section 34 of the Evidence Act, the relevant extract reads as under: Loose sheets of papers are wholly irrelevant as evidence being not admissible under section 34 so as to constitute evidence with respect to the transactions mentioned therein being

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

77 taxmann.com 245, held that noting on loose sheet/diary does carry any evidentiary value under the provision of section 34 of the Evidence Act, the relevant extract reads as under: Loose sheets of papers are wholly irrelevant as evidence being not admissible under section 34 so as to constitute evidence with respect to the transactions mentioned therein being

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

77 taxmann.com 245, held that noting on loose sheet/diary does carry any evidentiary value under the provision of section 34 of the Evidence Act, the relevant extract reads as under: Loose sheets of papers are wholly irrelevant as evidence being not admissible under section 34 so as to constitute evidence with respect to the transactions mentioned therein being

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

77 taxmann.com 245, held that noting on loose sheet/diary does carry any evidentiary value under the provision of section 34 of the Evidence Act, the relevant extract reads as under: Loose sheets of papers are wholly irrelevant as evidence being not admissible under section 34 so as to constitute evidence with respect to the transactions mentioned therein being

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. EL DORADO BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Section 68 of the Act for Rs.29,82,89,600/- on the ground of violation of natural justice. 4. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee in the present case is a private limited company. The assessee in the year under consideration has issued 106532 equity shares having face value at Rs.10 and premium of Rs.2790/- per share aggregating

RICH PAINTS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(2),, BARODA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 186/Ahd/2015 1995-96 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H 2. 187/Ahd/2015 1996-97 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H 3. 188/Ahd/2015 1997-98 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H

Section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash credit amounting to Rs. 50,50,000/-, Rs.11,77

RICH PAINTS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(2),, BARODA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 186/Ahd/2015 1995-96 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H 2. 187/Ahd/2015 1996-97 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H 3. 188/Ahd/2015 1997-98 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H

Section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash credit amounting to Rs. 50,50,000/-, Rs.11,77

RICH PAINTS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(2),, BARODA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 186/Ahd/2015 1995-96 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H 2. 187/Ahd/2015 1996-97 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H 3. 188/Ahd/2015 1997-98 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H

Section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash credit amounting to Rs. 50,50,000/-, Rs.11,77

ITO WARD-4(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. VALLEY COMTRADE PVT LTD ( EARLIER KNOWN AS JHAWAR COMTRADE PVT. LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddharatha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2034/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 I.T.O, M/S. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., Ward-4(1)(4), Vs. (Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Ahmedabad. Pvt. Ltd.,) C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli Bmw Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aadcs3553N & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 68/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 M/S. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O, (Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Vs. Ward-1(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd.,) Surat. C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli Bmw Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aadcs3553N

77,97,7007- against the returned income of Rs. 6,97, TOO/- after making the addition of Rs. 9,05,00,000/- on account of bogus share application money u/s 68 of the I.T. Act. received from (he following companies. Sr. No Name and Address of Investors Amount (Rs.) 1 Shri N&rayan Mdercantiles Pvt Ltd 5/1, Clive

M/S. SHREE SAGAR INDUSTRIES,,MEHSANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3,, HIMATNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1256/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ M/S.Shree Sagar Industries The Ito C/O. Patel Rajubhai M Ward-3, Vs. A-45, Shakuntala Society Himanatnagar Vijapur,Dist.Mehsana 384002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abmfs1529F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.S. Chhajed, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mudit Nagapal, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 09/07/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–7, Ahmedabad [Cit(A) In Short] Vide Appeal No.Cit(A)-7/446/14-15 Dated 20/02/2017 Arising In The Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) R.W.S.144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 13/01/2015 Relevant To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

68 of the Act, then it can be made in the preceding previous year in which such credit was found in the books of accounts. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the order of the authorities below. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the learned CIT (A) and direct the AO to delete

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

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

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

68 of the Act cannot be applied. However, the ld. CIT-A made the addition of GP on unaccounted sale and also made addition for the unaccounted purchases by observing as under: “3.31. I have considered all the submissions and rejoinders of the appellant, remand reports of the A.O. and Addl.CIT and it is found that the appellant has sold

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

68 of the Act cannot be applied. However, the ld. CIT-A made the addition of GP on unaccounted sale and also made addition for the unaccounted purchases by observing as under: “3.31. I have considered all the submissions and rejoinders of the appellant, remand reports of the A.O. and Addl.CIT and it is found that the appellant has sold

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

68 of the Act cannot be applied. However, the ld. CIT-A made the addition of GP on unaccounted sale and also made addition for the unaccounted purchases by observing as under: “3.31. I have considered all the submissions and rejoinders of the appellant, remand reports of the A.O. and Addl.CIT and it is found that the appellant has sold

THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

68 of the Act cannot be applied. However, the ld. CIT-A made the addition of GP on unaccounted sale and also made addition for the unaccounted purchases by observing as under: “3.31. I have considered all the submissions and rejoinders of the appellant, remand reports of the A.O. and Addl.CIT and it is found that the appellant has sold

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,VII,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

68 of the Act cannot be applied. However, the ld. CIT-A made the addition of GP on unaccounted sale and also made addition for the unaccounted purchases by observing as under: “3.31. I have considered all the submissions and rejoinders of the appellant, remand reports of the A.O. and Addl.CIT and it is found that the appellant has sold