KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.(OSD),CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

price that such goods or services would ordinarily fetch in the open market.] (9) Where any amount of profits and gains of an 76[undertaking]or of an enterprise in the case of an assessee is claimed and allowed under this section for any assessment year, deduction to the extent of such profits and gains shall not be allowed under

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH vs. M/S. HEUBACH COLOUR PVT. LTD.,, ANKLESHWAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

transfer pricing adjustment made by TPO was Nil. The AO has commented that the assessee has not provided the documentary evidences to prove the services rendered. We have gone through the documentary evidences filed by the assessee before the AO which are placed in the paper book, and we have observed that the assessee has duly provided the copy

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH vs. M/S. HEUBACH COLOUR PVT. LTD.,, ANKLESHWAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

transfer pricing adjustment made by TPO was Nil. The AO has commented that the assessee has not provided the documentary evidences to prove the services rendered. We have gone through the documentary evidences filed by the assessee before the AO which are placed in the paper book, and we have observed that the assessee has duly provided the copy

GALAXY DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT., CIRCLE-7(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed

transferred on change of jurisdiction, and further notices under section 142(1) along with detailed questionnaires were issued from time to time, calling for various details including explanation for valuation of land purchases and justification for not disclosing any income under the head “Income from House Property” in respect of unsold flats held as stock-in-trade.\nDuring the course

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SANJAY KISHANLAL BISHNOI,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

transfer to the overseas supplier against receipt of original shipping documents, Shri Omprakash in his statement also confirmed that once they received the original shipping documents their person would give them the payment either in Sudan or in Dubai in USD or Dirham or in Sudanese pound or any other arrangement as per their convenience. Shri Omprakash also admitted that

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SANJAY KISHANLAL BISHNOI,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

transfer to the overseas supplier against receipt of original shipping documents, Shri Omprakash in his statement also confirmed that once they received the original shipping documents their person would give them the payment either in Sudan or in Dubai in USD or Dirham or in Sudanese pound or any other arrangement as per their convenience. Shri Omprakash also admitted that

SMT. RITABEN SAKETKUMAR TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

46A namely Confirmation of Ledger Account, Full address and PAN details of Prashant Desai, however the addition was confirmed by CIT[A] on the sole ground of creditworthiness was I.T.A Nos. 977 & 978 /Ahd/2019 & Ors. A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2014-15 Page No 23 Saketkumar R Tanna vs. ITO & 2 Others not proved by providing the ITR and bank statements

SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. INDUMATIBEN RUGNATH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

46A namely Confirmation of Ledger Account, Full address and PAN details of Prashant Desai, however the addition was confirmed by CIT[A] on the sole ground of creditworthiness was I.T.A Nos. 977 & 978 /Ahd/2019 & Ors. A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2014-15 Page No 23 Saketkumar R Tanna vs. ITO & 2 Others not proved by providing the ITR and bank statements

SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

46A namely Confirmation of Ledger Account, Full address and PAN details of Prashant Desai, however the addition was confirmed by CIT[A] on the sole ground of creditworthiness was I.T.A Nos. 977 & 978 /Ahd/2019 & Ors. A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2014-15 Page No 23 Saketkumar R Tanna vs. ITO & 2 Others not proved by providing the ITR and bank statements

SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

46A namely Confirmation of Ledger Account, Full address and PAN details of Prashant Desai, however the addition was confirmed by CIT[A] on the sole ground of creditworthiness was I.T.A Nos. 977 & 978 /Ahd/2019 & Ors. A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2014-15 Page No 23 Saketkumar R Tanna vs. ITO & 2 Others not proved by providing the ITR and bank statements

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SMT. RITABEN SAKETKUMAR TANNA, AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

46A namely Confirmation of Ledger Account, Full address and PAN details of Prashant Desai, however the addition was confirmed by CIT[A] on the sole ground of creditworthiness was I.T.A Nos. 977 & 978 /Ahd/2019 & Ors. A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2014-15 Page No 23 Saketkumar R Tanna vs. ITO & 2 Others not proved by providing the ITR and bank statements

THE ITO WARD-5(3)(1) (PREVIOUSLY THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2)), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. INDUMATIBEN RUGNATH TANNA, AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

46A namely Confirmation of Ledger Account, Full address and PAN details of Prashant Desai, however the addition was confirmed by CIT[A] on the sole ground of creditworthiness was I.T.A Nos. 977 & 978 /Ahd/2019 & Ors. A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2014-15 Page No 23 Saketkumar R Tanna vs. ITO & 2 Others not proved by providing the ITR and bank statements

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

transfers, RTGS, and clearings in various bank accounts of the HUF, with no explanation or supporting evidence. Further, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had given a loan of Rs. 1,27,75,176/- to SBPL Finance, which is a non-filer with no return of income filed, and also a loan of Rs. 18,30,000/- to Shreeji

INCOME TAX WARD 4(2)(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL HUF, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

transfers, RTGS, and clearings in various bank accounts of the HUF, with no explanation or supporting evidence. Further, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had given a loan of Rs. 1,27,75,176/- to SBPL Finance, which is a non-filer with no return of income filed, and also a loan of Rs. 18,30,000/- to Shreeji

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

transfers, RTGS, and clearings in various bank accounts of the HUF, with no explanation or supporting evidence. Further, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had given a loan of Rs. 1,27,75,176/- to SBPL Finance, which is a non-filer with no return of income filed, and also a loan of Rs. 18,30,000/- to Shreeji

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

transfers, RTGS, and clearings in various bank accounts of the HUF, with no explanation or supporting evidence. Further, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had given a loan of Rs. 1,27,75,176/- to SBPL Finance, which is a non-filer with no return of income filed, and also a loan of Rs. 18,30,000/- to Shreeji

INCOME TAX WARD 4(2)(3) AHMEDABAD , AHMEDABAD vs. NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL HUF, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

transfers, RTGS, and clearings in various bank accounts of the HUF, with no explanation or supporting evidence. Further, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had given a loan of Rs. 1,27,75,176/- to SBPL Finance, which is a non-filer with no return of income filed, and also a loan of Rs. 18,30,000/- to Shreeji