THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI UMANG H. THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained capital and unexplained cash creditors respectively, without considering the factual position that the assessee failed to prove the identity and capacity of the depositors and the genuineness of the transaction with conclusive evidences. ITA Nos.2406&2407/Ahd/2008 & 04 others DCIT vs. Shri Umang H. Thakkar Asst.Years –2001-02to2003

SHRI UMANG HIRALAL THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained capital and unexplained cash creditors respectively, without considering the factual position that the assessee failed to prove the identity and capacity of the depositors and the genuineness of the transaction with conclusive evidences. ITA Nos.2406&2407/Ahd/2008 & 04 others DCIT vs. Shri Umang H. Thakkar Asst.Years –2001-02to2003

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI UMANG H. THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained capital and unexplained cash creditors respectively, without considering the factual position that the assessee failed to prove the identity and capacity of the depositors and the genuineness of the transaction with conclusive evidences. ITA Nos.2406&2407/Ahd/2008 & 04 others DCIT vs. Shri Umang H. Thakkar Asst.Years –2001-02to2003

SHRI UMANG HIRALAL THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained capital and unexplained cash creditors respectively, without considering the factual position that the assessee failed to prove the identity and capacity of the depositors and the genuineness of the transaction with conclusive evidences. ITA Nos.2406&2407/Ahd/2008 & 04 others DCIT vs. Shri Umang H. Thakkar Asst.Years –2001-02to2003

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI UMANG HIRALAL THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained capital and unexplained cash creditors respectively, without considering the factual position that the assessee failed to prove the identity and capacity of the depositors and the genuineness of the transaction with conclusive evidences. ITA Nos.2406&2407/Ahd/2008 & 04 others DCIT vs. Shri Umang H. Thakkar Asst.Years –2001-02to2003

JIGAR ASHOK HEBRA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2014-15 Jigar Ashok Hebra Ito, Ward-5(2)(1) B-2/33, Amrapali Apartment Vs Ahmedabad. Sukhipura Bus Stand Paldi, Ahmedabad. Pan : Acuph 2982 G

928/-and also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved against the assessee the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A), wherein the assessee filed written submissions along with application for additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 providing land ownership deals with supporting documents and also agriculture produce

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD, PANJARAPOLE, AHMEDABAD vs. VIKASH MORE, BODAKDEV, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

68,98,212/- as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C of the Act towards payment of commission on account of accommodation entry. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) was not right

DENIS CHEM LAB LIMITED,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE,, MEHSANA

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasaddenis Chem Lab Ltd. Acit, बनाम/ Block No.457, Mehsana Circle, Vs. Gidc Estate, Phase – I, Mehsana. Village : Chhatral, Tal. Kalol, Dist. Gandhinagar. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacd 4123 C .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Parth Patel, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri O.P. Pathak, Joit.Cit

928/- Provident Fund + Rs.79,916/- ESIC) by invoking Section 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act in utter disregard to the fact that Employees' contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC had been paid before the due date for the filing of the return of income u/s.139(1) and therefore the entire amount is eligible for deduction u/s.43B

VIMLABEN GUNVANTRAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2016-17

68,32,250/- in which the assessee‘s share (83.50%) is of Rs.2,24,04,928/-. The Assessing Officer observed that as per the valuation report received from the DVO the assessee’s share A.Y. 2016-17 Page 2 of 4 at 83.50% in the said property worked out to Rs.2,46,95,125/-. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made addition

VIJAY M.MISTRY CONSTRUCTION PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2938/Ahd/2011, 2939/Ahd/2011, 2286/Ahd/2012, 268/Ahd/2015, 269/Ahd/2015, 502/Ahd/2017, 1145/Ahd/2019 & 1468/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17) Address In A.Ys. 2007-08, बनाम/ 2008-09 & 2009-10 Vs. Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, 501, Swagat, C. G. Road, Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad – & Bhavan, Ambawadi, 380006 (Gujarat) Ahmedabad Address In A.Ys. 2010-11 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Range-8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Bhavan, Ambawadi, Society, Opp. Gulbai Ahmedabad Tekra Police Choki & Ambawadi, Ahmedabad – 380015 Address In A.Ys. 2011-12 Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax (Osd) & Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Society, Opp. Gulbai Bhavan, Ambawadi, Tekra Police Choki, Ahmedabad Ambawadi, Ahmedabad –

928/- as per Balance Sheet at Page 14 of Paper Book-I filed before us. 19.6 It appears from Clause 2.1 of the Tender at Page No. 310 of Paper Book-II, that the various materials and mix, load testing of Foundation, from (Page No. 312 of Paper Book-II & from clause 2.3 of Tender) Fusion Bonded Epoxy Coating

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VIJAY M. MISTRY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2938/Ahd/2011, 2939/Ahd/2011, 2286/Ahd/2012, 268/Ahd/2015, 269/Ahd/2015, 502/Ahd/2017, 1145/Ahd/2019 & 1468/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17) Address In A.Ys. 2007-08, बनाम/ 2008-09 & 2009-10 Vs. Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, 501, Swagat, C. G. Road, Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad – & Bhavan, Ambawadi, 380006 (Gujarat) Ahmedabad Address In A.Ys. 2010-11 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Range-8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Bhavan, Ambawadi, Society, Opp. Gulbai Ahmedabad Tekra Police Choki & Ambawadi, Ahmedabad – 380015 Address In A.Ys. 2011-12 Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax (Osd) & Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Society, Opp. Gulbai Bhavan, Ambawadi, Tekra Police Choki, Ahmedabad Ambawadi, Ahmedabad –

928/- as per Balance Sheet at Page 14 of Paper Book-I filed before us. 19.6 It appears from Clause 2.1 of the Tender at Page No. 310 of Paper Book-II, that the various materials and mix, load testing of Foundation, from (Page No. 312 of Paper Book-II & from clause 2.3 of Tender) Fusion Bonded Epoxy Coating

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2011-12

68,88,558/- iii. Disallowance u/s 35(2AB) :Rs. 3,82,99,313/- iv. Disallowance u/s 14A :Rs. 55,64,491/- v. Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB :Rs.16,34,58,692/- vi. Disallowance of Foreign Currency Loss :Rs.25,39,60,000/- vii. Inadmissible expense as per Explanation u/s 37(1) :Rs.10,89,29,928/- Thereafter, on scrutiny of the assessment

CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2011-12

68,88,558/- iii. Disallowance u/s 35(2AB) :Rs. 3,82,99,313/- iv. Disallowance u/s 14A :Rs. 55,64,491/- v. Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB :Rs.16,34,58,692/- vi. Disallowance of Foreign Currency Loss :Rs.25,39,60,000/- vii. Inadmissible expense as per Explanation u/s 37(1) :Rs.10,89,29,928/- Thereafter, on scrutiny of the assessment

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

Section 37(1) of the Act. ITA No.1772/Ahd/2015 and other 8 appeals Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. ACIT-DCIT (by Assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2002-03 to 2007-08 52 47. On the other hand, the DR relied on the orders of lower authorities. 48. After carefully considering the arguments and reviewing the judicial precedents cited

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

Section 37(1) of the Act. ITA No.1772/Ahd/2015 and other 8 appeals Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. ACIT-DCIT (by Assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2002-03 to 2007-08 52 47. On the other hand, the DR relied on the orders of lower authorities. 48. After carefully considering the arguments and reviewing the judicial precedents cited

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

Section 37(1) of the Act. ITA No.1772/Ahd/2015 and other 8 appeals Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. ACIT-DCIT (by Assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2002-03 to 2007-08 52 47. On the other hand, the DR relied on the orders of lower authorities. 48. After carefully considering the arguments and reviewing the judicial precedents cited

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

Section 37(1) of the Act. ITA No.1772/Ahd/2015 and other 8 appeals Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. ACIT-DCIT (by Assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2002-03 to 2007-08 52 47. On the other hand, the DR relied on the orders of lower authorities. 48. After carefully considering the arguments and reviewing the judicial precedents cited

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

Section 37(1) of the Act. ITA No.1772/Ahd/2015 and other 8 appeals Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. ACIT-DCIT (by Assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2002-03 to 2007-08 52 47. On the other hand, the DR relied on the orders of lower authorities. 48. After carefully considering the arguments and reviewing the judicial precedents cited