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

survey u/s. 133A), which mandates that the contents of such impounded documents are to be presumed to be true. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts by invoking and travelling to the provisions of section 34 of the Evidence Act (which is with respect to the entries in books of accounts) when the relevant

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

survey u/s. 133A), which mandates that the contents of such impounded documents are to be presumed to be true. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts by invoking and travelling to the provisions of section 34 of the Evidence Act (which is with respect to the entries in books of accounts) when the relevant

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s. 133A of the Act was carried out on 8th December, 2014 at the business premises of the assessee. On physical verification of the stock, survey team has found stock of jewelery to the amount of Rs. 18,26,797/- as against stock shown in the books to the amount of Rs. 1,78,92,962/-, there was shortage

PATEL AMBALAL LAXMANDAS NI CO.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee firm on 02/11/2015. During the survey proceedings, several documents, note books/loose papers files/ booking receipt books etc. were found and impounded as per Annexure A-1 to A-32. In view of the survey and incriminating materials found, the case of the assessee firm were reopened u/s

PATEL AMBALAL LAXMANDAS NI CO.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee firm on 02/11/2015. During the survey proceedings, several documents, note books/loose papers files/ booking receipt books etc. were found and impounded as per Annexure A-1 to A-32. In view of the survey and incriminating materials found, the case of the assessee firm were reopened u/s

PATEL AMBALAL LAXMANDAS NI CO.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee firm on 02/11/2015. During the survey proceedings, several documents, note books/loose papers files/ booking receipt books etc. were found and impounded as per Annexure A-1 to A-32. In view of the survey and incriminating materials found, the case of the assessee firm were reopened u/s

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AWAS DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 368/Ahd/2020 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T, M/S Awas Developers, Central Circle-1(4), Vs. “Agam Buglows” Ahmedabad. Opp. Subhash Society, Sanand-Kalol Road, Ahmedabad.

section 133A of the Act dated 04-03-2010. During the survey, the statement of Shri Ganshayamsingh Vaghela, a partner of the firm was recorded. In the statement, Shri Ganshayamsingh Vaghela in response to question No. 6 explained that the assessee has undertaken a project namely “Agam Bungalows” consisting of 40 Bungalows. 37 Bungalows out of 40 have already been

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

u/s 115BBE. 3.3 The observations made and case law relied upon by CIT(A) in this regard are not admitted and contrary to the facts of the case as well as law.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that a survey under section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) was conducted in the case

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

u/s 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

u/s 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

u/s 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

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. PIYUSH SUBODHBHAI JHAVERI, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

survey proceedings u/s 133A of the Act carried out by the department in Rajesh Jhaveri Group and his statements recorded u/s. 131(1A) of the Act. Further, the creditor I.T.A No. 1380 & 1381/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 7 DCIT Vs. Piyush Subodhbhai Jhaveri & Soham Commodities Pvt. Ltd. company PIL cannot be treated as a paper/shell company based on facts

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SOHAM COMMODITIES PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

survey proceedings u/s 133A of the Act carried out by the department in Rajesh Jhaveri Group and his statements recorded u/s. 131(1A) of the Act. Further, the creditor I.T.A No. 1380 & 1381/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 7 DCIT Vs. Piyush Subodhbhai Jhaveri & Soham Commodities Pvt. Ltd. company PIL cannot be treated as a paper/shell company based on facts

SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 20(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s 80IE(6) r.w.s. 80IA(10) in respect of alleged price difference Rs.1,25,288/- on purchase from Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (SPIL) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (A) erred m upholding the invoking of the provisions of S.80IE(6) r.w.s. 80IA(10) and thereby upholding the disallowance

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAWAN ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SURESHKUMAR PERIWAL (PAN AFTPP6547D, AHEMDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleit(Ss)A No. 153/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sureshkumar Periwal Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Prop. Of M/S. Shyam Bullion, Income-Tax, 113, First Floor, National Central Circle-1(2), Plaza, Opp. Lal Bungalows, Ahmedabad Cg Road, Ahmedabad [Pan : Aftpp 6547 D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Sureshkumar Periwal Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Prop. Of M/S. Shyam Bullion, Income-Tax, 113, First Floor, National Central Circle-1(2), Plaza, Opp. Lal Bungalows, Ahmedabad Cg Road, Ahmedabad [Pan : Aftpp 6547 D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit-Dr & Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Shri Biren Shah, Ar Date Of Hearing 12.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.04.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

u/s. 68 of the Act on account of unexplained credit in the books of accounts. 4. Meanwhile, a survey under section 133A

SAKET M JAINI(HUF),AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-5, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 579/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Saket M. Jain (Huf), The Pr. Commissioner Of 403, 3Rd Eye Two, Vs. Income Tax-2, Nr. Joyalukkas Show Room, Ahmedabad. Opp. Parimal Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad.

u/s.!43(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act,1961 dtd.26.12.2016 holding the same as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 2. The Learned Comm. of Income Tax, Ahmedabad -5 has erred in treating the purchase of standing teakwood timber of Rs.3,92,59,500/- as bogus only on the basis of statement

JAY BUILDCON. ,KADI vs. THE DCIT, MEHSANAS CIRCLE,, MEHSANA

section 133A of the Act on 11.1.2013 i.e. preceding financial year . That during the course of the survey action the partners of the assessee-firm had made surrender on account of on-money received by the assessees on plots sold/booked, but in the return of income filed for the impugned year, the assessee did not make disclosure of the entire

SUN DEVELOPERS,,KADI vs. THE DCIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE,, MEHSANA

section 133A of the Act on 11.1.2013 i.e. preceding financial year . That during the course of the survey action the partners of the assessee-firm had made surrender on account of on-money received by the assessees on plots sold/booked, but in the return of income filed for the impugned year, the assessee did not make disclosure of the entire