TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1400
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, 'C' Bench [for short 'the Tribunal'] in ITA No. 1380/Ahd/2019 for A.Y. 2010-11 whereas, Tax Appeal No. 405/2026 arises out of the same common order passed in ITA No. 1381/Ahd/2019for A.Y. 2010-11. 3. As the Tribunal has decided both the appeals by a common Judgement and Order, both Tax Appeals are being heard analogously. 4. Following substantial questions of law are raised by the Revenue in both the Appeals: Tax Appeal No. 759 of 2025 "(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ITAT has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,85,00,000/ made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained unsecured loan u/s 68 of the Act re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the initial onus and has not been able to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions even though the Surrounding circumstances and inquiries made by the AO were significant and in granting relief have ignored law as elaborated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT VS NR Portfolio Put Ltd (TA No 198/2011 dated 22.11.2023) (214 Taxmann 0408), SLP against which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 13.04.2021 with dairy number 5444/2014? (e) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ITAT has erred in not appreciating that the assessee has not been able to discharge the initial onus and has not been able to establish the identity, cre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....try through the entry provider Shirish Chandrakant Shah? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ITAT has erred ignoring the fact that the M/s Prraneta Industries Ltd(PIL) was a bogus, paper/shell company and Shirish Chandrakant Shah has admitted that he was controlling and running number of companies to provide bogus accommodation entries of LTCG & unsecured loan and M/s Prraneta Industries Ltd (PIL) was one of such company and directors of the company PIL have categorically admitted that they were dummy directors & there was no business activity in the company? (c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the learned ITAT is erroneous, illegal and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the transactions even though the surrounding circumstances and inquires made by the Assessing Officer were significant and in granting relief have ignored law as elaborated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. N. Tarika Properties Investment Pvt. Ltd. (40 Taxmann.com 525 (Delhi), SLP against which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 26.09.2014 and reported as 51 taxmann.com 387? (f) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ITAT has erred in granting relief to the taxpayer, the learned ITAT has ignored the Principle of Preponderance of Human Probability as elucidated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 1995 214 ITR 801 SC, and C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dispute the repayment of loans by the assessee through banking channels." 7. The Tribunal, while considering the undisputed fact that the Revenue could not dispute repayment of loans of the assessee, referred to and relied upon the decisions of this Court in case of PCIT vs. OJAS Tarmake (P.) Ltd reported in [2023] 156 Taxmann.com 75, in case of PCIT vs. Ganesh Plantation Ltd reported in [2022] 134 Taxmann.com 149 and in case of PCIT vs. Ambe Tradecorp (P.) Ltd reported in [2023] 290 Taxmann.com 471 and held as under: "7. In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Ojas Tarmake (P.) Ltd. reported in [2023] 156 taxmann.com 75 held as follows: "Where assessee showed unsecured l....