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

undisclosed income to a family member or director through a recorded banking channel, as it would create a permanent trail of the very funds it sought to hide. The loan taken by the assessee are running loan account and Assessing Officer has made addition for credits only ignoring significant payment in current year as well as subsequent years

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

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

undisclosed income to a family member or director through a recorded banking channel, as it would create a permanent trail of the very funds it sought to hide. The loan taken by the assessee are running loan account and Assessing Officer has made addition for credits only ignoring significant payment in current year as well as subsequent years

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

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

undisclosed income to a family member or director through a recorded banking channel, as it would create a permanent trail of the very funds it sought to hide. The loan taken by the assessee are running loan account and Assessing Officer has made addition for credits only ignoring significant payment in current year as well as subsequent years

SHILPABEN R. LUHANA,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

undisclosed income in respect of the assessee, during search action carried out in the Dhanjimama group of cases on 03.07.2012. The income unearthed/discovered by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings was independent and unconnected with the information found during the course of search action carried out in the Dhanjimama group of cases. Therefore, while the same

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

undisclosed amount and the same was I.T.A No. 2341/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 6 M/s. Arihant Jewels vs. ITO treated as headless income. On perusal of the material on record, it is noticed that assessee has categorically brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer that the assessee firm has shown Rs. 50 lacs

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.

income under section 68 of the Act. However, the same was deleted by the learned CIT(A) by holding that all the three ingredients of section 68 of the Act being identity, genuineness of transaction and credit worthiness of the parties has been established by the fact that the investor companies have made declaration of huge undisclosed

AADHYA REALITY,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.132/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Aadhya Infrastructure The Pr.Cit बनाम/ C/202, Manorath Complex Vadodara -1 V/S. Nr.Jalaram Nagar B/H. Mothers School Gotri Road Vadodara – 390 021 (Gujarat) Pan: Aayfa 4505 C & आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.133/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Aadhya Reality The Pr.Cit बनाम/ 10, Gopal Nagar Vadodara-1 V/S. Gotri Vasna Road Vasna Vadodara – 390 007 (Gujarat) Pan: Aazfa 3693 G पीलाथ&/ (Appellants) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee(S) By : Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prithviraj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

undisclosed income was taxed at the normal rate of 30%, instead of the higher rate of 60% under Section 115BBE of the Act, which applies to income covered under Sections 68

AADHYA INFRASTRUCTURE,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.132/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Aadhya Infrastructure The Pr.Cit बनाम/ C/202, Manorath Complex Vadodara -1 V/S. Nr.Jalaram Nagar B/H. Mothers School Gotri Road Vadodara – 390 021 (Gujarat) Pan: Aayfa 4505 C & आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.133/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Aadhya Reality The Pr.Cit बनाम/ 10, Gopal Nagar Vadodara-1 V/S. Gotri Vasna Road Vasna Vadodara – 390 007 (Gujarat) Pan: Aazfa 3693 G पीलाथ&/ (Appellants) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee(S) By : Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prithviraj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

undisclosed income was taxed at the normal rate of 30%, instead of the higher rate of 60% under Section 115BBE of the Act, which applies to income covered under Sections 68

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 is not covered under clause (a), the income tax payable\nshall be the aggregate of-\n(i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in\nclause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent

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

undisclosed income. Asst.Year 2017-18 - 7– 11. The next ground raised by the assessee pertaining to invocation of provision of section 115BBE of the Act. The provision of section 115BBE of the Act reads as under: “… (1) Where the total income of an assessee.- (a) includes any income referred to in section 68

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 is not covered under clause (a), the income tax payable\nshall be the aggregate of-\n(i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in\nclause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent

SHRI ASHOK SUNDERDAS VASWANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

undisclosed income of the person other than the searched person. He further submitted that in the present appeals, both the events, that is, recording of satisfaction by the AO of the searched person, and by the AO of these appellants, have happened subsequent to 1.6.2015 because Ld. AO is common. Therefore, new section is applicable. He also submitted that section

M/S. VENUS INFRABUILD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

undisclosed income of the person other than the searched person. He further submitted that in the present appeals, both the events, that is, recording of satisfaction by the AO of the searched person, and by the AO of these appellants, have happened subsequent to 1.6.2015 because Ld. AO is common. Therefore, new section is applicable. He also submitted that section

SHRI DEEPAK BUDHARMAL VASWANI,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

undisclosed income of the person other than the searched person. He further submitted that in the present appeals, both the events, that is, recording of satisfaction by the AO of the searched person, and by the AO of these appellants, have happened subsequent to 1.6.2015 because Ld. AO is common. Therefore, new section is applicable. He also submitted that section

M/S. VENUS INFRABUILD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

undisclosed income of the person other than the searched person. He further submitted that in the present appeals, both the events, that is, recording of satisfaction by the AO of the searched person, and by the AO of these appellants, have happened subsequent to 1.6.2015 because Ld. AO is common. Therefore, new section is applicable. He also submitted that section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI DEEPAK KUMAR VASWANI,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

undisclosed income of the person other than the searched person. He further submitted that in the present appeals, both the events, that is, recording of satisfaction by the AO of the searched person, and by the AO of these appellants, have happened subsequent to 1.6.2015 because Ld. AO is common. Therefore, new section is applicable. He also submitted that section

SHRI RAJESH SUNDERDAS VASWANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

undisclosed income of the person other than the searched person. He further submitted that in the present appeals, both the events, that is, recording of satisfaction by the AO of the searched person, and by the AO of these appellants, have happened subsequent to 1.6.2015 because Ld. AO is common. Therefore, new section is applicable. He also submitted that section

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ASHOK SUNDERDAS VASWANI, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

undisclosed income of the person other than the searched person. He further submitted that in the present appeals, both the events, that is, recording of satisfaction by the AO of the searched person, and by the AO of these appellants, have happened subsequent to 1.6.2015 because Ld. AO is common. Therefore, new section is applicable. He also submitted that section