SURESHBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL,VADODARA vs. ITO - WARD 1(2)(5), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 255-256/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-13 Sureshbhai Prabhudas Patel, D.C.I.T. Opp Parbadi Padra Road, Vs. Central Circle-2(1) Samiyala Village, Ahmedabad. Vadodara-390002. Pan: Atypp6249H

deposit the said capital gains in an account which is duly notified by the Central Government. In other words if he want of claim exemption from payment of income tax by retaining the cash

SURESHBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL,VADODARA vs. ITO - WARD 1(2)(5), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 255-256/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-13 Sureshbhai Prabhudas Patel, D.C.I.T. Opp Parbadi Padra Road, Vs. Central Circle-2(1) Samiyala Village, Ahmedabad. Vadodara-390002. Pan: Atypp6249H

deposit the said capital gains in an account which is duly notified by the Central Government. In other words if he want of claim exemption from payment of income tax by retaining the cash

ASHISH TILAKCHANDRA BHATT,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, ANAND

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year : 2012-13 Ashish Tilakchandra Bhatt The Dcit, Opp: Kailash Bhumi Vs Cir. Gandhinagar Borsad Chokdi Road Anand 388 001, Gujarat. Pan : Akwpb2390L (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri D.K. Parikh, Ld.Ar : Revenue By Shri Ravindra, Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/12/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2025

capital gain .It be so held now and Indexation be directed to be allowed as per provisions of section 48 of IT Act. 3. Without prejudice to above grounds , the Id NFAC/ CIT(A) further grievously erred both in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.18,18,000/- being amounts deposited in bank account ignoring the legal

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

depositing the same in the capital gain account scheme, the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of the provisions of section 54F of the Act. 15.15 It was also alleged that the expenditures shown by the assessee against the construction of the bungalow were bogus in nature. Admittedly, the amount of capital gain is calculated by subtracting the cost

SABBIRALI ALIMIYA SAIYED,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 904/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-15 वष"

capital & increase in reserve & surplus of Rs.18.00 Crore, Amortization expenses debited in P & L Account of Rs.17,69,656/- and cash deposit of Rs.4,50,000/-. For A.Y.2014-15, the A.O has made addition on account of unsecured loans u/s.68 of the Act of Rs.1.49 Crore. The said company has actually not done any business and can be treated

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

Appeal is dismissed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

cash deposit and remaining amount offered under the head short- term capital gain. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under section

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

cash deposit and remaining amount offered under the head short- term capital gain. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under section

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

cash deposit and remaining amount offered under the head short- term capital gain. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under section

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

deposited in the overdraft account of the assessee and in such a case it should be presumed that the taxes were paid out of the profits of the year and not out of the ITA No.805 and 2744/Ahd/2017 overdraft account for the running of the business. It noted that to raise the presumption, there was sufficient material and the assessee

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

deposited in the overdraft account of the assessee and in such a case it should be presumed that the taxes were paid out of the profits of the year and not out of the ITA No.805 and 2744/Ahd/2017 overdraft account for the running of the business. It noted that to raise the presumption, there was sufficient material and the assessee

SHRI BHUPESH NAVINCHANDRA RAVAL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2287/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14)

deposit the said capital gains in an account which is duly notified by the Central Government. In other words if he want of claim exemption from payment of income tax by retaining the cash

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

deposit has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee. And also the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.49,00,000 & Rs.1,89,43,840 on account of undisclosed capital gain on Land Block No. 325 & 485A respectively which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

deposit has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee. And also the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.49,00,000 & Rs.1,89,43,840 on account of undisclosed capital gain on Land Block No. 325 & 485A respectively which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

deposit has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee. And also the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.49,00,000 & Rs.1,89,43,840 on account of undisclosed capital gain on Land Block No. 325 & 485A respectively which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts