RUDRA GLOBAL INFRA PRODUCTS LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

10. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Simit P. Sheth [2013] 38 taxmann.com 385 (Gujarat) / [2013] 219 Taxman 85 (Gujarat) (Mag.) / [2013] 356 ITR 451 (Gujarat), the assessee was engaged in business of trading in steel on wholesale basis. The Assessing Officer having found that some of Rudra Global Infra Products Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Year

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI MAHESH SOMABHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 10(38). The Assessing officer denied claim and made certain additions into assessee's income on the ground that said gains were earned through bogus penny stock transactions and companies to whom sold shares belonged were bogus in nature. The Tribunal observing that assessee by submitting records of purchase

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. BHAVESHKUMAR GIRISHBHAI BHANDARI, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

Appeal is allowed in ITA 978/Ahd/2025 and ITA\n978/Ahd/2025 as well

section 10(38) of the Act. The AO asked the\nassessee to explain why the LTCG should not be treated as bogus. In\nresponse, the assessee filed a reply dated 13.03.2023 and subsequently\nanother reply on 16.03.2023, contending that the notice was short-timed and\nthat he had already furnished all relevant documents such as purchase

KISHORI PANKAJ AGARWAL,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , VADODARA, GUJARAT

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38) of the Act has been allowed with the following observations: “21. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through the submissions, paper book and plethora of judgments referred and relied by both sides. ITA No. 623/Ahd/2023 [Kishori Pankaj Agarwal vs. ITO] A.Y. 2015-16 - 12 – Common issue raised

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. GIRISHKUMAR AMRATLAL BHANDARI HUF, HIMATNAGAR, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed and the order of\nthe Assessing Officer is restored

section 10(38) of the Act. The AO asked the\nassessee to explain why the LTCG should not be treated as bogus. In\nresponse, the assessee filed a reply dated 13.03.2023 and subsequently\nanother reply on 16.03.2023, contending that the notice was short-timed and\nthat he had already furnished all relevant documents such as purchase

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. BHAVESHKUMAR GIRISHBHAI BHANDARI, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed and the order of\nthe Assessing Officer is restored

section 10(38) of the Act. The AO asked the\nassessee to explain why the LTCG should not be treated as bogus. In\nresponse, the assessee filed a reply dated 13.03.2023 and subsequently\nanother reply on 16.03.2023, contending that the notice was short-timed and\nthat he had already furnished all relevant documents such as purchase

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR vs. RUDRA GLOBAL INFRA PRODUCTS LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

purchases aggregating to Rs. 41,71,10,137/- as bogus in respect of the following four suppliers: ITA No. 1163/Ahd/2025 N CO No. 70/Ahd/2025 ACIT Vs. Rudra Global Infra Products Ltd Asst. Year : 2022-23 - 3– Sr. Name of Supplier Quantity of MS Amount No. scrap (in MT) (Rs.) 1 GSRS Steel & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. 4663.600 10,68,38

SHAH RAKESH BHIKHABHAI (HUF),AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

bogus and deny exemption under section 10(38) - Held, yes [Paras 6.3, 6.5 and 6.11] [In favour of assessee]…” 8.2. Whereas in the present case, a show-cause notice was issued by the Ld.PCIT on 27.03.2023 and on the request made by the assessee, the relevant portion of the statement of Shri Champak N Prajapati was provided to the assessee

JAYANTILAL PANACHAND SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year : 2014-15 Jayantilal Panachand Shah The Pr.Cit-1 72, Topovan Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Manekbaug Hall Ambawadi Ahmedabad 380 015 Pan : Aqnps 2754 C (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Divetia, Ar : Shri A.P. Singh, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/11/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

bogus LTCG claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act from penny stock scrip of Looks Health Services Ltd.). 7.1 In view of the fact of the case and ruling of Hon'ble Supreme court, it is clear that the assessment order is passed by the A.O., without making proper examination of the issues mentioned above. The Assessing Officer

ATMIBEN ALIPTKUMAR DOSHI,,SABARKANTHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SK WARD-3, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2015-16

10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The perusal of Share Transfer Form also indicates dubious nature of purchase of shares of Kappac Pharma Ltd. The shares were bought by assessee on 02.04.2012 in cash and shares were transferred in the name of the assessee on 09.10.2012 though the Share Transfer Form is dated 04.01.2013 and signature

SADBHAV ENGINEERING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed\nand that of the Revenue are dismissed

38,69,160/- \nΝ.Α\ndated 19.10.2017\n(Return of search\nyear)\ndated 27.03.2018\n(Return of search\nyear)\n80. The AO did two things with respect to the assessee's claim of\ndeduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act viz ;\ni)\nHe dealt with the assessee's claim of deduction in the\nreturn filed under section 153A

INDIAN ION EXCHANGE & CHEMICALS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1) PREVIOUSLY WARD-2(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2014-15

38 taxmann.com 385 (Guj) 3) CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab P. Ltd., 40 taxmann.com 494 (Guj,) 4) CIT vs Odeon Builders Ltd., 110 taxmann.com 64 (SC) 7. Per contra, Shri B.P. Srivastava, Ld. Sr. DR submitted that a search operation was conducted in the case of one Shri Mahendra Shantilal Patel and in the course of search it was found

BALDEVBHAI LALABHAI LUHAR,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(2), PRATYAKSHAR BHAVAN,AHMEDABAD

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

38 taxmann.com 385 Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that where purchases are not bogus but were made from parties other than those mentioned in books of account, not entire purchase price but only profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. In the present case, the Gujarat High Baldevbhai L Luhar

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. DEVAL PRANAV PATEL L/H. OF LATE SHRI PRANAV MAHENDRABHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2017-18

10(38) of the Act without considering the facts of the case. The Ld. DR further summited that the addition made on account of payment of commission amounting to Rs.29,94,349/- under Section 69C of the Act is also not justifiable by deleting the same. The Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer has rightly made the addition

GITABEN DINESHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

10(38) as bogus. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee had earned the impugned capital gain from sale of shares of Kushal Tradelink Ltd., which, according to the information received from the Investigation Wing, was one of the penny stock companies used for providing accommodation entries of bogus capital gains and losses. The Assessing Officer relied

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SANJAY PRATAPRAI MEHTA, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 10(38) of the Act on account of sale of shares of M/s. Comfort Fincap Ltd. During the source of assessment the Assessing Officer was of the view that the company was not doing substantial business and not declaring dividend and accordingly disallowed the claim of exemption of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of impugned script

TEJALBEN SAMIRKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 78/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Tejalben Samirkumar Shah, Principal Commissioner Of 10, Opera Society, Vs. Income Tax-1, Vibhag-2, Ahmedabad. Paldi, Ahmedabad-380007. Pan: Askps2898E

10(38) of Rs: 31,37,301/- should not be rejected and Rs: 36,37,301/- should be treated as your income for the AY / - 2015 - 16 From the above you differed the amount at two different points: In fact my LTCG of Rs: 31,37,301/- consists of the following scripts Rs: 29,69,381/- on sale of shares

SHAILESH SUBODHCHANDRA JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

section 10(38) on sale of shares had rightly been disallowed. The ITAT made the following relevant observations, while dismissing the appeal of the assessee on this issue: Thus, the contention of the assessee that the transaction leading to long-term capital gains are supported by documents of sale and purchase, bank statement etc., cannot be accepted keeping in view

SHAILESH S. JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

section 10(38) on sale of shares had rightly been disallowed. The ITAT made the following relevant observations, while dismissing the appeal of the assessee on this issue: Thus, the contention of the assessee that the transaction leading to long-term capital gains are supported by documents of sale and purchase, bank statement etc., cannot be accepted keeping in view