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

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

69C of the Act holding that when peak deficit is brought to tax in A.Y. 2011-12 , the same has to be considered while computing the deficit of peak of cash in A.Y. 2015-16 without appreciating that: (a) Deficit in cash in A.Y. 2011-12 was occasioned due to outflow of cash; (b) When the cash has been expended

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

69C of the Act holding that when peak deficit is brought to tax in A.Y. 2011-12 , the same has to be considered while computing the deficit of peak of cash in A.Y. 2015-16 without appreciating that: (a) Deficit in cash in A.Y. 2011-12 was occasioned due to outflow of cash; (b) When the cash has been expended

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

transfer of shares and of M/s. Kushal Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer has categorically mentioned that there was SEBI order from which modus operandi of price manipulation in the scrip of M/s Kushal Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. for the period was categorically mentioned by the Assessing Officer. In fact, the said scrip was defunct in case of Ketan Parikh dated

NAVRANGPURA ORGANISERS & DEV. PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

transferred into project account. Further, it had been claimed in the course of search proceedings that because of confusion regarding purchase of material by Sujan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. from Kalhar Societies of Rs.4.96 crores, the same confusion was in case of Navratna Organisers & Developers Pvt. Ltd. also, therefore, the entries of liabilities were changed accordingly. However, this explanation doesn

NAVRATNA ORGANISERS & DEV. PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENT. CIRCLE 1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

transferred into project account. Further, it had been claimed in the course of search proceedings that because of confusion regarding purchase of material by Sujan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. from Kalhar Societies of Rs.4.96 crores, the same confusion was in case of Navratna Organisers & Developers Pvt. Ltd. also, therefore, the entries of liabilities were changed accordingly. However, this explanation doesn

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)

69C, read with section 132, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained expenditure (Addition on basis of retracted statement) - Assessment years 1990-91 to 1999-2000 - A search operation was carried out at premises of assessee - Assessee retracted from disclosure made in statement under section 132(4) - Retraction was not accepted by Revenue - Assessing Officer made additions of undisclosed income

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)

69C, read with section 132, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained expenditure (Addition on basis of retracted statement) - Assessment years 1990-91 to 1999-2000 - A search operation was carried out at premises of assessee - Assessee retracted from disclosure made in statement under section 132(4) - Retraction was not accepted by Revenue - Assessing Officer made additions of undisclosed income

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)

69C, read with section 132, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained expenditure (Addition on basis of retracted statement) - Assessment years 1990-91 to 1999-2000 - A search operation was carried out at premises of assessee - Assessee retracted from disclosure made in statement under section 132(4) - Retraction was not accepted by Revenue - Assessing Officer made additions of undisclosed income

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)

69C, read with section 132, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained expenditure (Addition on basis of retracted statement) - Assessment years 1990-91 to 1999-2000 - A search operation was carried out at premises of assessee - Assessee retracted from disclosure made in statement under section 132(4) - Retraction was not accepted by Revenue - Assessing Officer made additions of undisclosed income

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)

69C, read with section 132, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained expenditure (Addition on basis of retracted statement) - Assessment years 1990-91 to 1999-2000 - A search operation was carried out at premises of assessee - Assessee retracted from disclosure made in statement under section 132(4) - Retraction was not accepted by Revenue - Assessing Officer made additions of undisclosed income

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)

69C, read with section 132, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained expenditure (Addition on basis of retracted statement) - Assessment years 1990-91 to 1999-2000 - A search operation was carried out at premises of assessee - Assessee retracted from disclosure made in statement under section 132(4) - Retraction was not accepted by Revenue - Assessing Officer made additions of undisclosed income

PUNEET SINGH R. BHADOURIA,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(9), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

price and volumes. Assessment Year: 2014-15 Page 3 of 6 After taking cognisance of the assessee’s submissions, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.38,29,680/- as unexplained money under Section 69 of the Act and addition of Rs.2,60,733/- as commission paid under Section 69C of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order

ISMAIL ABDULAZIZ LAKHANI,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: the same were transferred through registered broker, on the floor of the recognized stock exchange, after suffering Security Transaction Tax and ultimately settled through proper banking channel) as unaccounted income under Section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.1,51,12,000/-.

section 69C of the Act amounting to Rs.3,02,240/- to the income of the appellant. 5. Your Appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend and withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. The solitary issue in the present appeal relates to long capital gain earned by the assessee during the impugned year on sale of shares

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2213-2214/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 M/S. Pushkar Corporation, D.C.I.T., 27, Nakshatra Arcade, Vs. Central Circle-1(4), Ioc Road, Ahmedabad. Chandkheda, Ahmedabad. C/O. M.S. Chhajed & Co. “Kamal Shanti” Besides Bank Of Baroda, Nr. Sardar Patel Under Bridge, Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aalep1840Q & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2345-2346/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S. Pushkar Corporation, Central Circle-1(4), Vs. 27, Nakshatra Arcade, Ahmedabad. Ioc Road, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad. C/O. M.S. Chhajed & Co. “Kamal Shanti” Besides Bank Of Baroda, Nr. Sardar Patel Under Bridge, Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aalep1840Q

69C. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT{A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting addition of unexplained expenditure of Rs. 64,96,000/-. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2213-2214/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 M/S. Pushkar Corporation, D.C.I.T., 27, Nakshatra Arcade, Vs. Central Circle-1(4), Ioc Road, Ahmedabad. Chandkheda, Ahmedabad. C/O. M.S. Chhajed & Co. “Kamal Shanti” Besides Bank Of Baroda, Nr. Sardar Patel Under Bridge, Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aalep1840Q & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2345-2346/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S. Pushkar Corporation, Central Circle-1(4), Vs. 27, Nakshatra Arcade, Ahmedabad. Ioc Road, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad. C/O. M.S. Chhajed & Co. “Kamal Shanti” Besides Bank Of Baroda, Nr. Sardar Patel Under Bridge, Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aalep1840Q

69C. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT{A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting addition of unexplained expenditure of Rs. 64,96,000/-. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld

HASMUKH UGARCHAND GADHECHA, HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.591/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Hasmukh Ugarchand The Ito बनाम/ Gadhecha, Huf Ward-5(2)(2) V/S. 3Rd Floor, Anjalee House Ahmedabad – 380 015 Cg Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaahg 7194 K (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak R. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 26/12/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-2014. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Hasmukh Ugarchand Gadhecha, Huf Vs. Ito Asstt.Year : 2013-14 2 “1. That The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Law & In The Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Order Of The Ao In Reopening Assessment U/S.147 Of The Act.

69C of the Act. 5. The Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in not allowing an opportunity of cross examination of persons whose statements were relied upon and personal hearing before confirming addition U/S 68 of the Act 6. Your appellant craves for leave to add, amend or alter