SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

price of this block was at Rs.5,13,883/-. The assessee has purchased this block along other family members, and was having 1/6th share. The AO has made addition of Rs.5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment in block no.77. Similarly, the assessee has made addition of Rs.4,48,378/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

price of this block was at Rs.5,13,883/-. The assessee has purchased this block along other family members, and was having 1/6th share. The AO has made addition of Rs.5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment in block no.77. Similarly, the assessee has made addition of Rs.4,48,378/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

price of this block was at Rs.5,13,883/-. The assessee has purchased this block along other family members, and was having 1/6th share. The AO has made addition of Rs.5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment in block no.77. Similarly, the assessee has made addition of Rs.4,48,378/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

price of this block was at Rs.5,13,883/-. The assessee has purchased this block along other family members, and was having 1/6th share. The AO has made addition of Rs.5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment in block no.77. Similarly, the assessee has made addition of Rs.4,48,378/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

price of this block was at Rs.5,13,883/-. The assessee has purchased this block along other family members, and was having 1/6th share. The AO has made addition of Rs.5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment in block no.77. Similarly, the assessee has made addition of Rs.4,48,378/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

price of this block was at Rs.5,13,883/-. The assessee has purchased this block along other family members, and was having 1/6th share. The AO has made addition of Rs.5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment in block no.77. Similarly, the assessee has made addition of Rs.4,48,378/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

price of this block was at Rs.5,13,883/-. The assessee has purchased this block along other family members, and was having 1/6th share. The AO has made addition of Rs.5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment in block no.77. Similarly, the assessee has made addition of Rs.4,48,378/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

price of this block was at Rs.5,13,883/-. The assessee has purchased this block along other family members, and was having 1/6th share. The AO has made addition of Rs.5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment in block no.77. Similarly, the assessee has made addition of Rs.4,48,378/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

price of this block was at Rs.5,13,883/-. The assessee has purchased this block along other family members, and was having 1/6th share. The AO has made addition of Rs.5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment in block no.77. Similarly, the assessee has made addition of Rs.4,48,378/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account

SHRI PRAHLAD S. MEHTA L/H OF LATE RAJPAL P. MEHTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(3) NOW WARD-5(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal is dismissed

price of these shares Rs.5,59,500/- is added as income from undisclosed sources, therefore, Rs.5,33,747/- is requested to be reduced from income of appellant if addition of Rs.5,59,500/- is sustained or else there shall be double taxation of income.” I.T.A Nos. 796 & 797/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2004-05 Page No 6 Prahlad S. Mehta & Najuben Rajpal Mehta

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ATRI DEVELOPERS,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 The Dcit, Cir.3(3) M/S.Atri Developers Ahmedabad. Vs 19, Ambalal House Mayur Park Society Satellite Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatfa 1086 D Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S.Atri Developers The Dcit, Cir.3(3) 19, Ambalal House Vs Ahmedabad. Mayur Park Society Satellite Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatfa 1086 D

transferred by the society to the Appellant - Clause 29 it is mentioned that the landowner will give the Appellant 20% as development charge Reading of the above clauses, makes it amply clear that the expenses towards the development was required to be borne and incurred by the society, whereas the role of the appellant was only towards arranging such materials

M/S. ATRI DEVELOPERS,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 The Dcit, Cir.3(3) M/S.Atri Developers Ahmedabad. Vs 19, Ambalal House Mayur Park Society Satellite Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatfa 1086 D Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S.Atri Developers The Dcit, Cir.3(3) 19, Ambalal House Vs Ahmedabad. Mayur Park Society Satellite Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatfa 1086 D

transferred by the society to the Appellant - Clause 29 it is mentioned that the landowner will give the Appellant 20% as development charge Reading of the above clauses, makes it amply clear that the expenses towards the development was required to be borne and incurred by the society, whereas the role of the appellant was only towards arranging such materials

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. SAMBHAV INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1818/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Cir.4(1)(1) Vs. Sambhav Infrastructure P.Ltd. Ahmedabad. B-12, Amar Aprtment Vasna Barrage Road Vasna, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aakcs 5194 C

price increase in the construction material, profit out of such extra work, was almost nil. However, in order to buy peace, an amount of Rs.4 crores on such extra collection as profit in the return. Assessee has relied upon certain decision of higher authorities for the proposition of law that entire admitted undisclosed income could not be taxed, and only

MANISH DEVENDRAKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in full

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.918/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Manish Devendrakumar Shah The Ito बनाम/ 206, 2Nd Floor, Kalash 1 Ward-5(3)(1) V/S. Navrangpura Ahmedabad Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aqjps 4226 K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divatia, Ar & Shri Samir Vora, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20 /02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

undisclosed income though the purchase price of RS. 250000/- was paid by cheque from regular bank a/c. It is therefore prayed that the addition of Rs. 1,07,92,400/-/- u/s 68 of Act confirmed by the CIT(A) should be deleted. 5. During the course of hearing before us, the Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee preferred

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

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 ITO, WARD-9(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI RASIKBHAI AMBALAL PATEL,HUF, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1308/Ahd/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

undisclosed business income. It was contended by the AO that the assessee has executed sale deed with the purchaser and also has given possession of the property coupled with the fact that major sale consideration has been received during the year under consideration. The AO accordingly contended that the assessee has completed the performance of contract as per Transfer

NARAYANBHAI SHIVABHAI PATEL,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

income represented by any addition made in conformity with the arm's length price determined by the Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed