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

69B can be made. Admittedly, in case of assesse no such material is available. 18. There were found certain loose papers/diaries containing the noting of certain amounts which cannot be equated as an evidence under the provision of section 34 of the Evidence Act, to draw an inference that there was unexplained investment made by the assessee. As such, these

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

69B can be made. Admittedly, in case of assesse no such material is available. 18. There were found certain loose papers/diaries containing the noting of certain amounts which cannot be equated as an evidence under the provision of section 34 of the Evidence Act, to draw an inference that there was unexplained investment made by the assessee. As such, these

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

69B can be made. Admittedly, in case of assesse no such material is available. 18. There were found certain loose papers/diaries containing the noting of certain amounts which cannot be equated as an evidence under the provision of section 34 of the Evidence Act, to draw an inference that there was unexplained investment made by the assessee. As such, these

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

69B can be made. Admittedly, in case of assesse no such material is available. 18. There were found certain loose papers/diaries containing the noting of certain amounts which cannot be equated as an evidence under the provision of section 34 of the Evidence Act, to draw an inference that there was unexplained investment made by the assessee. As such, these

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

price. Similarly, the contention of the assessee that cash of Rs. 2.98 crores was paid out of undisclosed income of the directorsof Rs. 3.21 crores is not accepted for the reason that there was no evidence that the disclosure was made against unaccounted investment. The return was filed by the directors and their relatives under section 139(4) disclosing brokerage

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

price. Similarly, the contention of the assessee that cash of Rs. 2.98 crores was paid out of undisclosed income of the directorsof Rs. 3.21 crores is not accepted for the reason that there was no evidence that the disclosure was made against unaccounted investment. The return was filed by the directors and their relatives under section 139(4) disclosing brokerage

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

price. Similarly, the contention of the assessee that cash of Rs. 2.98 crores was paid out of undisclosed income of the directorsof Rs. 3.21 crores is not accepted for the reason that there was no evidence that the disclosure was made against unaccounted investment. The return was filed by the directors and their relatives under section 139(4) disclosing brokerage

DR. SHRUTI RAMRAO SHEJOLE, AASHRAM ROAD vs. HARSHADKUMAR KANTILAL SAVALIYA, ISCON TEMPLE AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) / Co By : It(Ss)A/Ita Assess- No(S) अपीलाथ' / !(थ' / No(S) /Co No. Ment Appellant बनाम/Vs. Respondent Year(S) 1. It(Ss)A No. 2019-20 Dcit Central Gsg Abode Llp 21/Ahd/2024 Circle-1(2) 1001, 10Th Floor Ahmedabad – 380 Safal Profitaire, 009 Corporate Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 006 Pan:Aatfg 0941 R (Assessee) (Revenue) 2. Co No. 2019-20 Gsg Abode Llp Dcit Central Circle- 32/Ahd/2024 1001, 10Th Floor 1(2) (In Itss)A Safal Profitaire, Ahmedabad – 380 009 No.21/Ahd/2024) Corporate Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 006 Pan:Aatfg 0941 R (Assessee) 3. Ita 2020-21 Dcit Central Csg Abode Llp 665/Ahd/2024 Circle-1(2) Ahmedabad-380 006 Ahmedabad- -380 009 4. It(Ss)A 2019-20 Dcit, Cen.Cir-1(2) Hitendrakumar 19/Ahd/2024 Ahmedabad- Bhailalbhai Patel -380 009 4A Bhailalbhai Bhavan 4A Ketan Society Nr.Sardar Patel Colony Navjivan Post Naranpura-380 014 Pan: Afupp 4221 K 5. It(Ss)A 2019-20 Dcit, Cen.Cir-1(2) Janki Dharmik Patel 20/Ahd/2024 Ahmedabad Ahmeeabad-380 009 Pan: Anjpp 8960 E

69B of the Act of Rs. 19,63,00,000/-, without considering the incriminating digital evidence suggested cash involvement in the transaction of immovable property?” ITA No.IT(SS)A No.21/Ahd/2024 & 8 Others DCIT vs. GSG Abode LLP & Others Asst. Years : 2019-20 & 2020-21. 3.2. The identical grounds have been taken by the Revenue in the cases

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAWAN ASHRAM ROAD AHMEDABAD vs. KANTIBHAI TAPUBHAI SAVALIA, SCON TAMPLE AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) / Co By : It(Ss)A/Ita Assess- No(S) अपीलाथ' / !(थ' / No(S) /Co No. Ment Appellant बनाम/Vs. Respondent Year(S) 1. It(Ss)A No. 2019-20 Dcit Central Gsg Abode Llp 21/Ahd/2024 Circle-1(2) 1001, 10Th Floor Ahmedabad – 380 Safal Profitaire, 009 Corporate Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 006 Pan:Aatfg 0941 R (Assessee) (Revenue) 2. Co No. 2019-20 Gsg Abode Llp Dcit Central Circle- 32/Ahd/2024 1001, 10Th Floor 1(2) (In Itss)A Safal Profitaire, Ahmedabad – 380 009 No.21/Ahd/2024) Corporate Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 006 Pan:Aatfg 0941 R (Assessee) 3. Ita 2020-21 Dcit Central Csg Abode Llp 665/Ahd/2024 Circle-1(2) Ahmedabad-380 006 Ahmedabad- -380 009 4. It(Ss)A 2019-20 Dcit, Cen.Cir-1(2) Hitendrakumar 19/Ahd/2024 Ahmedabad- Bhailalbhai Patel -380 009 4A Bhailalbhai Bhavan 4A Ketan Society Nr.Sardar Patel Colony Navjivan Post Naranpura-380 014 Pan: Afupp 4221 K 5. It(Ss)A 2019-20 Dcit, Cen.Cir-1(2) Janki Dharmik Patel 20/Ahd/2024 Ahmedabad Ahmeeabad-380 009 Pan: Anjpp 8960 E

69B of the Act of Rs. 19,63,00,000/-, without considering the incriminating digital evidence suggested cash involvement in the transaction of immovable property?” ITA No.IT(SS)A No.21/Ahd/2024 & 8 Others DCIT vs. GSG Abode LLP & Others Asst. Years : 2019-20 & 2020-21. 3.2. The identical grounds have been taken by the Revenue in the cases

DR. SHRUTI RAMRAO SHEJOLE, AAYKAR BHAWAN ASHRAM ROAD vs. HITENDRAKUMAR BHAILALBHAI PATEL, NAVJIVAN POST NARANPURA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) / Co By : It(Ss)A/Ita Assess- No(S) अपीलाथ' / !(थ' / No(S) /Co No. Ment Appellant बनाम/Vs. Respondent Year(S) 1. It(Ss)A No. 2019-20 Dcit Central Gsg Abode Llp 21/Ahd/2024 Circle-1(2) 1001, 10Th Floor Ahmedabad – 380 Safal Profitaire, 009 Corporate Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 006 Pan:Aatfg 0941 R (Assessee) (Revenue) 2. Co No. 2019-20 Gsg Abode Llp Dcit Central Circle- 32/Ahd/2024 1001, 10Th Floor 1(2) (In Itss)A Safal Profitaire, Ahmedabad – 380 009 No.21/Ahd/2024) Corporate Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 006 Pan:Aatfg 0941 R (Assessee) 3. Ita 2020-21 Dcit Central Csg Abode Llp 665/Ahd/2024 Circle-1(2) Ahmedabad-380 006 Ahmedabad- -380 009 4. It(Ss)A 2019-20 Dcit, Cen.Cir-1(2) Hitendrakumar 19/Ahd/2024 Ahmedabad- Bhailalbhai Patel -380 009 4A Bhailalbhai Bhavan 4A Ketan Society Nr.Sardar Patel Colony Navjivan Post Naranpura-380 014 Pan: Afupp 4221 K 5. It(Ss)A 2019-20 Dcit, Cen.Cir-1(2) Janki Dharmik Patel 20/Ahd/2024 Ahmedabad Ahmeeabad-380 009 Pan: Anjpp 8960 E

69B of the Act of Rs. 19,63,00,000/-, without considering the incriminating digital evidence suggested cash involvement in the transaction of immovable property?” ITA No.IT(SS)A No.21/Ahd/2024 & 8 Others DCIT vs. GSG Abode LLP & Others Asst. Years : 2019-20 & 2020-21. 3.2. The identical grounds have been taken by the Revenue in the cases

THE ITO, S.K.WARD-1,, HIMATNAGAR vs. MARK MICRON PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

69B of the act to the total income of the assessee as unrecorded investment. Aggrieved against the order of the assessing officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the impugned disallowance made by the assessing officer. The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee on this issue. He found that assessee has borrowed