H K ISPAT PVT. LTD.,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

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

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

89,600/- under Section 68 of the Act, without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the material

HARISHKUMAR KHUSHALRAY BHATT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(2) NOW WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Harishkumar Khushalray Bhatt Ito, Ward-3(3)(2) P/1, Chandragupta Apartment Vs. Ahmedabad. Nr. Gordhandas Patel Hospital Vastrapur Ahmedabad. Pan : Abspb 3786 F (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Pritesh L. Shah, Ar : Shri Uday Kishanrao Kakne, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

68 of the Act as unexplained cash credits. 4. The AO noted that the assessee had declared gross sales of Rs.5,58,93,655/- and shown a gross profit of Rs.70,96,459/-, resulting in a gross profit ratio of 12.70%. However, the net profit declared was only Rs.8,59,823/-, which worked out to a net profit ratio

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GTC OILFIELDS SERVICES P. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the 8 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royappeal No. Ay Appellant Respondent Sn M/S. Gtc Oilfields Services P. Ltd., 2009-10 The Dcit, 61, New York Tower, A-Block, It(Ss)A Nos. 1-3 2010-11 Central Circle 1(4), Thaltej Char Rasta, S.G. Road, 314 To 316/Ahd/2019 2014-15 Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380054 Pan : Aaacg 8684 P The Dcit, M/S. Gtc Oilfields Services P. Ltd.

Section 68 of the Act by treating the share capital and share premium amounts as unexplained cash credit were not sustainable as rightly held by the learned CIT(A). 14. At the time of hearing before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee has emphasized that the facts involved in the present cases are materially similar to the facts

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 of the Act cannot be invoked in the given facts and circumstances. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere in the finding of the Ld. CIT-A. Hence, the ground of appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed. 43. In the result, appeal filed the Revenue is dismissed Coming to ITA No 2131/Ahd/2017

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 of the Act cannot be invoked in the given facts and circumstances. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere in the finding of the Ld. CIT-A. Hence, the ground of appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed. 43. In the result, appeal filed the Revenue is dismissed Coming to ITA No 2131/Ahd/2017

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 of the Act cannot be invoked in the given facts and circumstances. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere in the finding of the Ld. CIT-A. Hence, the ground of appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed. 43. In the result, appeal filed the Revenue is dismissed Coming to ITA No 2131/Ahd/2017

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 of the Act cannot be invoked in the given facts and circumstances. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere in the finding of the Ld. CIT-A. Hence, the ground of appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed. 43. In the result, appeal filed the Revenue is dismissed Coming to ITA No 2131/Ahd/2017

M/S. FLOURISH PUREFOODS PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-2(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. No.518/Ahd/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Flourish Purefoods Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 11-12, Ecs House, Garden View, Tax, Nr. Global Hospital, Bodakdev, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad-380054 Ahmedabad [Pan No.Aadcv2683B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

section 68 of the Act. 11.1 First of all, we find that the assessee has shown an advance in the immediate preceding assessment year as on 31 March 2010 in the name of Shri Kanjibhai Desai amounting to Rs. 23.02 crore. This fact has not been disputed by the AO which is evident from the audited financial statement

THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CAPAXO LOGISTICS PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1264/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.190/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 I.T.O., M/S. Capaxo Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Ward-1(1)(3), Vs. 302, Third Floor, Ahmedabad. 3Rd Eye, C.G.Cross Road, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad.

section 68 w.e.f. A. Y. 2013-14, no addition of share application money could be made in the case of company and any addition of share application money is to be made in the hands of share applicants. 4.4. The Assessing Officer has held that identity of share applicants could not be proved mainly for the reason that appellant

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

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

68 of the Act by furnishing the necessary details about the source of share capital and premium received from above mentioned 5 investor companies. 13. Coming to the companies namely M/s. Pearl Tracom Pvt. Ltd., M/s 13.1 With respect to above 3 companies the DDIT in commission report under section 131(1)(d) has submitted that one company namely

DIPAKKUMAR JAGDISHCHANDRA MAHETA,CHHOTAUDEPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), (PREVIOUSLY ITO, WARD-3(1)(3)), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Dipakkumar Jagdishchandra Maheta The Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Holi Chakla Vs. Vadodara. Alipura Char Rasta Bodeli,Chhotaudepur Gujarat. Pan : Ahtpm 6296 N (Applicant) (Responent) : Shhri Jigar Adhyaru, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 15.05.2024, Confirming The Addition Made By The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3(1)(3), Baroda [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”] Under Section 68 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] In Respect Of The Opening Capital Balance As On 01.04.2014 Amounting To Rs.96,10,209/–, In The Case Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015–16. 2. Facts Of The Case

section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] in respect of the opening capital balance as on 01.04.2014 amounting to Rs.96,10,209/–, in the case of the assessee for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015–16. 2. Facts of the Case 2.1 The assessee is an individual engaged in the business of transportation

M/S. PUSHPAK BULLION PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Jurisdictional High Court & The Hon’Ble Gujarat High Court Dismissed The Writ Petition Filed By The Assessee Vide Judgment Dated 27-06-2016 In Sca No. 18512 Of 2015 & Upheld The Validity Of The Reassessment Notice.

Section 68 on the ground that it is bogus accommodation entry as alleged by the AO from the following three companies as under: M/s. Kunal Gems Rs. 7,89

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

89. Both the learned DR and the learned AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below as favourable to them. 90. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The provision of section 68

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

89. Both the learned DR and the learned AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below as favourable to them. 90. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The provision of section 68

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

89. Both the learned DR and the learned AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below as favourable to them. 90. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The provision of section 68

ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MS GOODFARM REARING, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

89 Taxmann.com 80.\n8.1.\nThe AR also submitted that the assessee had discharged the initial onus\ncast under section 68