HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

bogus purchases had been set aside in entirety by the Hon’ble ITAT for fresh adjudication and therefore the earlier relief granted by the CIT(A) stood merged with the order of the Tribunal. It was observed that the Assessing Officer had rightly re-examined the entire issue in accordance with the directions of the ITAT and hence the contention

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

bogus purchases had been set aside in entirety by the Hon’ble ITAT for fresh adjudication and therefore the earlier relief granted by the CIT(A) stood merged with the order of the Tribunal. It was observed that the Assessing Officer had rightly re-examined the entire issue in accordance with the directions of the ITAT and hence the contention

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

HARSHADKUMAR HARGOVANDAS PATEL,KALOL vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

bogus or fictitious. The\nCounsel pointed out that the Assessing Officer, being in possession of the\nnames and addresses of the concerned parties, was duty-bound to make\nnecessary inquiries before drawing any adverse inference. However, no such\ninquiry was conducted, and the claim was disallowed merely on suspicion.\nThe Counsel submitted that it is a well-settled principle

MANISHKUMAR RAMLAKHAN AGRAWAL,AHMEDABAD vs. WARD 6(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, impugned notice is quashed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

purchase and sale of equity shares of Kushal Ltd. and claimed exemption u/s. 10(38) of the Act of Rs.57,50,682/-. However, the Assessing Officer based on the Investigation Report held that Kushal Group was involved in the price rigging of Shares and sudden price increase in the shares is actually resulted by the market manipulation and have