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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged undisclosed amounts of capital gain on Block

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged undisclosed amounts of capital gain on Block

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged undisclosed amounts of capital gain on Block

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged undisclosed amounts of capital gain on Block

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged undisclosed amounts of capital gain on Block

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged undisclosed amounts of capital gain on Block

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI KAILASH RAMAVATAR GOENKA, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

capital gains. The CIT(A) allowed deduction for unaccounted expenses related to these transactions for calculating taxable gains and restricted indexation benefits to the year of receipt of sale consideration. • Internal Circulation of Funds: Such transactions include Fund transfers within group entities treated as unexplained income by the AO. The CIT(A) recognised these as internal fund movements and treated

RAVINDRABHAI SHANKARBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(5) NOW ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), VADODARA

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalthe Ito Ravindrabhai Shankarbhai Vs. Ward-1(2)(5). Patel Now Ito, Ward-1(2)(2) 86,Kanha Residency Vadodara – 390 007 Kalali Road, Kalali Ahmedabad – 390 012 [Pan : Aigpp 8415 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Assessee Represented By : Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue Represented By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026

capital gains at Rs.1,66,98,526/- as against Nil returned by the assessee and completed the assessment at a total income of Rs.1,75,34,640/-. Penalty

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

Capital Gains (LTCG) entries to clients. These trades were linked to groups like Amrapali and Vaswani, with Rajesh Jhaveri acting as an intermediary. The assessee's ITA Nos.14 to 16/Ahd/2024 Shailesh Subodhchandra Jhaveri vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2012-13 - 6– request for cross-examination of Shah and Damodar Attal was denied as the decision was based on evidence

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

Capital Gains (LTCG) entries to clients. These trades were linked to groups like Amrapali and Vaswani, with Rajesh Jhaveri acting as an intermediary. The assessee's ITA Nos.14 to 16/Ahd/2024 Shailesh Subodhchandra Jhaveri vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2012-13 - 6– request for cross-examination of Shah and Damodar Attal was denied as the decision was based on evidence

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

Capital Gains (LTCG) entries to clients. These trades were linked to groups like Amrapali and Vaswani, with Rajesh Jhaveri acting as an intermediary. The assessee's ITA Nos.14 to 16/Ahd/2024 Shailesh Subodhchandra Jhaveri vs. DCIT Asst.Years –2011-12 to 2012-13 - 6– request for cross-examination of Shah and Damodar Attal was denied as the decision was based on evidence

SUMIT H BHAGCHANDANI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty proceedings u/s. 270A of the Act is unjustified. 4. Appellant craves leave to add/alter grounds of appeal.” Sumit H Bhagchandani vs. DCIT Asst. Year –2017-18 - 2– 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri Sumit Harishbhai Bhagchandani, filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 on 30.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.2

THAKORBHAI MAGANBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD- 3(1)(1), VADODARA

capital gain by\nassuming cost of acquisition as nil. Accordingly, the reassessment was\ncompleted under section 143(3) read with section 147 on 22.11.2016\ndetermining total income at ₹1,11,98,170/- and initiating penalty

SHRI NAVINCHANDRA N. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.” Shri Navinchandra N Patel Vs. ACIT Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 3– 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of "Trading of Land for project Development & in shares". The assessee had filed his return of income for the year under consideration

RAMSINHJI MERAJI VANZARA,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

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

capital gains tax. 5. The learned CIT(A) has passed the appellate order in breach of natural justice by not granting proper opportunity of hearing, especially in light of the difficulties faced by the appellant and his family during the COVID-19 pandemic. 6. The learned AO has passed the order without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred

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

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

capital gain was computed at ₹9,51,234/-, and\nsince the assessee had declared only 6,45,834/-, the difference of\n3,05,400/- was added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty

ISMAIL ABDULAZIZ LAKHANI,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: the same were transferred through registered broker, on the floor of the recognized stock exchange, after suffering Security Transaction Tax and ultimately settled through proper banking channel) as unaccounted income under Section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.1,51,12,000/-.

capital gain claimed by the assessee is to be held as non-genuine. Reliance in this ITA No. 803/Ahd/2025 [Ismail Abdulaziz Lakhani vs. ITO] A.Y. 2014-15 - 10 – regard is placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal (214 ITR 801) (SC) wherein the Supreme Court is held as under: "This