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

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

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

purchase of the properties should be made taxable under the head capital gain and accordingly the assessee is entitled for the exemption under section 54F of the Act. Thus, it seems to us by this finding of the ITAT (us), the grievance of the revenue is answered against it. 15.13 However, for the completeness of the case, we are inclined

MARDIA COPPER EXTRUTIONS PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 229/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 1990-1991 M/S Mardia Copper Extrusions Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T, C/O Mehta Lodha & Co., Vs. Circle-2(1)(2), 105, Sakar-I, Near Gandhigram Railway Ahmedabad. Station, Off Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aabcm3848G

253 or an appeal lo the Nigh Court under section 260A or an appeal to Ihe Supreme Conn under section 261 or revision under section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty is passed before the order of the Commissioner (Appeals

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. EL DORADO BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

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

purchases, bogus sales and the bogus investments through the companies as discussed above. 7. In view of the above, the AO initiated the income escapement proceedings under Section 147 of the Act by issuing a notice dated 30th March 2016 under Section 148 of the Act. The assessee in response to such notice filed its return of income dated 27th

DISHMAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and its cross objections are dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Sinh

purchased, how production could be started. This aspect has been considered by the ld.CIT(A) while taking note of these facts in paragraph 3.4 at page no.38 of the impugned order. We have taken cognizance of this paragraph in the earlier part of this order, therefore we are of the view that the ld.CIT(A) has appreciated the facts

THE ITO, WARD-1(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DISHMAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and its cross objections are dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Sinh

purchased, how production could be started. This aspect has been considered by the ld.CIT(A) while taking note of these facts in paragraph 3.4 at page no.38 of the impugned order. We have taken cognizance of this paragraph in the earlier part of this order, therefore we are of the view that the ld.CIT(A) has appreciated the facts

SMT. PARAMADEVI TEKRIWAL, ,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(5),, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. Paramadevi Tekriwal, The Income-Tax Officer, D-143, Kaliyabid, Bhavnagar Vs Ward 1(5), Pan : Addpt 3030 F Bhavnagar अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad (“Cit(A)” In Short) Dated 09.07.2018. 2. The Relevant Facts Of The Case Giving Rise To This Appeal Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Who Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Originally On 16.03.2014. Although The Said Return Was Originally Accepted Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short), The Assessment Was Subsequently Reopened By The Assessing Officer On The Basis Of Information Received From Investigation Wing Of The Income-Tax Department That The Long Term Capital Gains Of Rs.1,13,53,982/- Arising From The Sale Of Equity Shares Of Kgn Enterprise Ltd. For A Consideration Of Rs.1,13,87,902/- Claimed As Exempt In The Return Of Income Was Bogus & It Was Actually An Accommodation Entry. The Assessing Officer Accordingly Issued A Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act To Smt. Paramadevi Tekriwal Vs. Ito Ay : 2013-14 2

bogus LTCG on penny stock shares. Hon'ble Court has held as follows : "The assessee had on the advice of an income tax consultant purchased shares of two penny stock Kolkata based companies i.e., 8000 shares at the rate of Rs.5.50 per share on 08.08.2003 and 4-000 shares at the rate of Rs.4/- per share on 05.08.2003 from Syncom

ALPA UDAYKUMAR SHAH,,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2),, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Memebr

bogus. Hon'ble Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in Income Tax Appeal No. 18/2017 in the case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain L/H Shantidevi Bimlchand Jain vs Pr.CIT-I, Nagpur &. Another has confirmed addition on account of LTCG on penny stock shares, Hon'bte Court has held as follows ; "The assessee had on the advice of an income tax Consultant purchased

ACIT, CIRCLE-3(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KRAFT LAMINATE, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Years : 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Kraft Laminate, Income-Tax, Vs C/O. Laxmi Timber, Nr. Circle 3(2), Ahmedabad Mahalaxmi Textile Mill, Opp. Rajbai Patel Timber Market, Narol Naroda Highway, Narol, Ahmedabad-382405 Pan : Aamfk 8120 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-:

bogus. He held that once confirmation of the loan creditors had been filed by the assessee, any action if required was to be taken in the case of loan creditors and not in the case of the assessee. Relying on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rohini Builders Vs. DCIT (supra), he held that

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

bogus.\nIn line with the precedent relied upon, we hold that the ad hoc\ndisallowances for both years cannot be sustained, and the same are deleted.\nAs regards the Revenue's contention that the expenditure of Rs.78,82,000/-\nin A.Y. 2013–14 is capital in nature, we observe that these costs pertain to\nsite development and soil filling, which

ADANI AGRO PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee appeal is thus allowed

Bench: Shri O. P. Meena& Ms. Madhumita Roy

purchased the shares at a higher value, then it would be questionable, but it is not so, in the present case and hence, we find no merit in the orders of authorities below in holding that the loss claimed by selling the shares of GGDL to its 100% subsidiary below the book value should be ignored while setting

AURA SECURITIES PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

purchased the shares at a higher value, then it would be questionable, but it is not so, in the present case and hence, we find no merit in the orders of authorities below in holding that the loss claimed by selling the shares of GGDL to its 100% subsidiary below the book value should be ignored while setting

AURA SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

purchased the shares at a higher value, then it would be questionable, but it is not so, in the present case and hence, we find no merit in the orders of authorities below in holding that the loss claimed by selling the shares of GGDL to its 100% subsidiary below the book value should be ignored while setting

SHAILESHBHAI BHA vs. ANGBHAI CHAVDA,BHAVNAGARVS.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4) BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

bogus long term capital gains/bogus short term capital loss/bogus purchase loss etc. . Various incriminating documents were seized by Revenue during the course of search operations. Therefore, there was a reason to believe that the scrips of M/s. Divine Multimedia India Ltd., M/s. Diamant Infrastructure Ltd. and M/s VMS Industries Ltd. are not genuine. Shri Naresh Jain in his statement recorded

MANMOHAN PRAVINCHANDRA MADANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITIO, WARD-3(2)(10), AHMEDABAD

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

253/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s.40A(3) of the I. T. Act, 1961 in\nrespect of payments made for purchase of goods and labour charges.\n4.\nThe Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the additions made by\nthe Assessing Officer without considering the fact that the alleged cash deposits being\npart of business turnover has already

KRUTIKA ASHWIN SARVAIYA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

purchase invoice bills of J B & Sons(Prop. Mohanbhai Jivabhai Makwana) before the AO. The assessee has also claimed that she is owning agricultural land and the said land was given to tillers for farming. The said tillers were incurring expenses towards fertilizer, pesticides , seed and other farming expenses , and the assessee is getting 25% share in farming. No expenses

THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VADODARA vs. PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD., VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

bogus.\nIn line with the precedent relied upon, we hold that the ad hoc\ndisallowances for both years cannot be sustained, and the same are deleted.\nAs regards the Revenue's contention that the expenditure of Rs.78,82,000/-\nin A.Y. 2013–14 is capital in nature, we observe that these costs pertain to\nsite development and soil filling, which

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

bogus.\nIn line with the precedent relied upon, we hold that the ad hoc\ndisallowances for both years cannot be sustained, and the same are deleted.\nAs regards the Revenue's contention that the expenditure of Rs. 78,82,000/-\nin A.Y. 2013–14 is capital in nature, we observe that these costs pertain to\nsite development and soil filling

SAKET M JAIN (HUF),AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Division Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 24.03.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961

bogus transaction. The AO observed that sales tax @15 percent is applicable on the sale of timber/wood , but the assessee has not paid any sales tax and failed to submit its sales tax number/TIN/VAT number. The AO also issued Show Cause Notice(SCN) to the assessee, which is reproduced by the AO in assessment order at page