BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

186 results for “TDS”+ Capital Gainsclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,384Delhi1,095Bangalore674Chennai547Kolkata286Ahmedabad186Chandigarh152Jaipur120Hyderabad117Raipur73Cochin70Pune62Indore52Surat49Visakhapatnam34Lucknow28Cuttack26Karnataka25Rajkot18Nagpur18Dehradun15Agra14Telangana13Amritsar12Panaji10Guwahati9Patna8Kerala7SC6Calcutta5Jodhpur5Ranchi4Jabalpur4Varanasi3Allahabad3Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)85Addition to Income77Section 80I61Disallowance60Section 14A47TDS34Deduction31Section 143(2)30Penalty24Section 147

DCIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ALPESHKUMAR C.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1991/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1908/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive In Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. Pan: Aeapp9489G

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Pratap Singh CIT. D.R with Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.D.R
Section 41(1)Section 54F

capital gain in the event the assessee makes the sale of its bungalow in dispute. It is because the revenue has not doubted on the incurrence of such expenses while framing the assessment. Besides the above, all the necessary details of the construction expenses were made available to the authorities below along with the addresses and the payments were made

SHRI VATSAL NAVNITLAL PARIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

Showing 1–20 of 186 · Page 1 of 10

...
23
Section 271(1)(c)22
Section 26322

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 182/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Vatsal Navnitlal Parikh Ito, Ward-5(2)(1) 501, Belvedere Flat Vs Ahmedabad. 5Th Floor, Jodhpur Cross Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aavpp 9647 H Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt.Rajshri Vastal Parikh Ito, Ward-5(2)(1) 501, Belvedere Flat Vs Ahmedabad. 5Th Floor, Jodhpur Cross Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Acypp 8836 H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divetia, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: These Appeals Are Filed By Two Assessees Against Orders Of Even Dated I.E. 27.12.2018 Passed By Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-5, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] Relating To The Assessment Year 2015-16. Since Common Issue Is Raised In Both The Appeals, We Dispose Of Them By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 54

capital gain and treated Rs.33 lakhs as income from other source. ii) TDS U/s 194/A on Tulsi Bunglow was deducted

SMT. RAJSHRI VASTAL PARIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 183/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Vatsal Navnitlal Parikh Ito, Ward-5(2)(1) 501, Belvedere Flat Vs Ahmedabad. 5Th Floor, Jodhpur Cross Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aavpp 9647 H Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt.Rajshri Vastal Parikh Ito, Ward-5(2)(1) 501, Belvedere Flat Vs Ahmedabad. 5Th Floor, Jodhpur Cross Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Acypp 8836 H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divetia, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: These Appeals Are Filed By Two Assessees Against Orders Of Even Dated I.E. 27.12.2018 Passed By Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-5, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] Relating To The Assessment Year 2015-16. Since Common Issue Is Raised In Both The Appeals, We Dispose Of Them By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 54

capital gain and treated Rs.33 lakhs as income from other source. ii) TDS U/s 194/A on Tulsi Bunglow was deducted

JCIT(OSD), CIR-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE (INDIA) LTD, HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1225/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nand Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 391Section 45

capital expenditure not allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act. 7.2 Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who relied on the decisions of Ld. CIT(A) for the preceding years i.e. AYs 2008- 09 to 2010-11, deleted the disallowance of Rs.1,57,98,657/- on account of product registration. 7.3 We find that

RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA PVT. LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA LTD.,),HARYANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1184/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nand Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 391Section 45

capital expenditure not allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act. 7.2 Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who relied on the decisions of Ld. CIT(A) for the preceding years i.e. AYs 2008- 09 to 2010-11, deleted the disallowance of Rs.1,57,98,657/- on account of product registration. 7.3 We find that

VISHAL EXPORTS OVERSEAS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ground No.7 raised by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 399/AHD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year:2009-10 Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd., The Acit, Circle-8, 301 Sheel Complex, 4 Mayur Colony, Vs Ahmebada. Nr. Mithakhali Six Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan :Aaacv 2354 D (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Ms Urvashi Shodhan, Advocate Revenue By : Shria. P. Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21/04/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement: 29/06/2022 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms Urvashi Shodhan, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriA. P. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

capital gain). Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered the submission of the assessee and delete the addition made by AO. It be so held now. 8. Confirming levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C is unjustified. Initiation of penalty u/s, 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified. 9. Initiation of penalty

SHRI CHAITANYA BANSIBHAI. NAGORI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-4, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 377/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Shri P. B. Parmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: 05/05/2022
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194ISection 263Section 56(2)(vii)

TDS @ 1%. This was nothing but a clerical error of the concerned person of Aqua Infrastructures. The original purchase agreement dated 02.05.2014 exhibits the reference of booking letter dated 07.07.2010 at page 7 of the said agreement. vi) It has been further contended that no payments have been made from the O.D. bank account no. 474 maintained with Bank

SHAMA AJAY PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(IT & TP), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 132/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shama Ajay Patel, Vs. 2, Chandroday Society, The Cit(It & Tp), Opp. Golden Triangle, Sp Ahmedabad Stadium Road, Navjivan Post, Ahmedabad-380014 Pan : Alxpp 5273 E अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It & Tp), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. "Cit(It & Tp)" For Short] Dated 08.02.2023, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit (It & Tp) Reads As Under:- “1. The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Passing Order U/S 263 Without Jurisdiction & Appropriate Powers Available Under The Act. It Is Submitted That The Order Passed U/S. 263 Is Bad In Law As A.O. Has Neither Committed Any Error Nor It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. It Be Held Now.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 147Section 263

capital gain on the same and TDS was already deducted and taxed at 15.45%. She has submitted that shares were

JOGESHBHAI RAMANLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 115/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Jogeshbhai Ramanlal Patel The Pcit-3, C.A. Ashokkumar S. Gupta, C-411, Pratykash Kar 203/1, New Cloth Market, O/S. Bhavan, Ambawadi, Vs Raipur Gate, Raipur, Gujarat-380009 Ahmedagad-380002 [Pan No. : Aaxpp3232E] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. Respondent By : Shri A. P. Singh, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 06.09.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50C

capital gain; Explanation (iii) to Section 48 reads as under: “indexed cost of acquisition means an amount which bears to the cost of acquisition the same proportion as Cost Inflation Index for the year in which the asset is transferred bears to the Cost Inflation Index for the first year in which the asset was held by the assessee

SEJALBEN PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR.CIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 701/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Sejalben Patel The Pr.Cit-1 1049, Kantvalue Faliyu Vs. Vadodara. At & Po-Karkhadi Tal. Padra, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Drhpp 9550 D Asstt.Year : 2018-19 Binitaben Sandipkumar Patel The Pr.Cit-1 Javla, Chotra Pase Vs. Vadodara. Savli, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Cwopp 4609 Q (Applicant) (Responent)

For Appellant: Ms.Urvashi Sodhan, AR
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194Section 263Section 31Section 54

capital gain, and Form 26AS. It was explained that the assessee held only 4% share in the said immovable properties jointly with family members. The assessee did not claim any exemption under section 54 of the Act. 3.3 The Assessing Officer examined the details and, in para 3.3 (para 3.4 in case of Binitaben Patel) of the assessment order, observed

BINITABEN SANDIPKUMAR PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR.CIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 702/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Sejalben Patel The Pr.Cit-1 1049, Kantvalue Faliyu Vs. Vadodara. At & Po-Karkhadi Tal. Padra, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Drhpp 9550 D Asstt.Year : 2018-19 Binitaben Sandipkumar Patel The Pr.Cit-1 Javla, Chotra Pase Vs. Vadodara. Savli, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Cwopp 4609 Q (Applicant) (Responent)

For Appellant: Ms.Urvashi Sodhan, AR
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194Section 263Section 31Section 54

capital gain, and Form 26AS. It was explained that the assessee held only 4% share in the said immovable properties jointly with family members. The assessee did not claim any exemption under section 54 of the Act. 3.3 The Assessing Officer examined the details and, in para 3.3 (para 3.4 in case of Binitaben Patel) of the assessment order, observed

THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. BAJAJ HERBALS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is, thus, allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1088/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 194A(1)Section 194A(3)Section 40

TDS. 4. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in directing the A.O to rework Capital Gain

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. DOLPHIN LABORATORIES LTD.,( NOW KNOWN AS INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1298/AHD/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

TDS to the commission agents, where major portion in US$ and exports of goods. Therefore, the disallowance of Rs.55,62,090/- made by the Assessing Officer was deleted. Before us Ld.CIT-DR could not place before us any contra views or documents against the finding of the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, this ground raised by ITA Nos.ITA Nos.1297 & 1298/Ahd/2014 Dy.CIT

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. DOLPHIN LABORATORIES LTD.,( NOW KNOWN AS INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1297/AHD/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

TDS to the commission agents, where major portion in US$ and exports of goods. Therefore, the disallowance of Rs.55,62,090/- made by the Assessing Officer was deleted. Before us Ld.CIT-DR could not place before us any contra views or documents against the finding of the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, this ground raised by ITA Nos.ITA Nos.1297 & 1298/Ahd/2014 Dy.CIT

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI RANCHHODBHAI MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1076/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R
Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

capital gain. Thus the ground of appeal is partly allowed. 6. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by ld. CIT(A), confirming the disallowance of certain expenses towards cost of improvement. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that so far as land leveling

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI R. MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2281/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R
Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

capital gain. Thus the ground of appeal is partly allowed. 6. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by ld. CIT(A), confirming the disallowance of certain expenses towards cost of improvement. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that so far as land leveling

LATE BHAGWATSINH JIBHUBHAI CHAVDA)L/H.BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1075/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R
Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

capital gain. Thus the ground of appeal is partly allowed. 6. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by ld. CIT(A), confirming the disallowance of certain expenses towards cost of improvement. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that so far as land leveling

BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA, (L/H OF LATE BHAGWATSINH J CHAVDA),AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 511/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R
Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

capital gain. Thus the ground of appeal is partly allowed. 6. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by ld. CIT(A), confirming the disallowance of certain expenses towards cost of improvement. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that so far as land leveling

PARESH ISHWARBHAI DESAI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(2)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1047/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1047/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2014-2015 Paresh Iswarbhai Desai, Income Tax Officer, Rabari Vyas, Vs. Ward-2(2)(4), Kali Gam, Ahmedabad. Po. Digvijaynagar, Ranip, Ahmedabad-382480. Pan: Adwpd2265R

For Appellant: Shri Ketan H. Shah, A.R with Shri Aman Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R
Section 131(1)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)

TDS compliance for plastering work contract given the color of mattipuran and routed the payment through partner’s account. Thus, the AO disallowed the assessee’s claim of mattipran & leveling expenses and added to the short term capital gain

DEVRAJ HARSHADRAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1093/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri P. F. Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R
Section 234Section 54BSection 68

TDS). During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer observed that against the aforesaid sale consideration of Rs. 40 lakhs, the assessee had shown capital gains