THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. GANESH HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) “Ganesh Corporate House” Navjivan Trust Bldg. Vs. Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Hebatpur-Thaltej Road Nr. Sola Bridge Off. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Aaacg 5590 Q With Co No.216/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. Navjivan Trust Bldg. “Ganesh Corporate House” Vs. Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Hebatpur-Thaltej Road Nr. Sola Bridge Off. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Dhiren Shah, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri C. Danday, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19/09/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2018 आदेश/O R D E R

reopening of the assessment. In this first fold of reasons, he observed that the assessee has shown long term capital gain

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

reopened solely on the basis of DVO's report. Nothing is on the record that thereafter, any further inquiry is held/conducted by the Assessing Officer to form an opinion that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment with respect to the Capital gain

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

reopened solely on the basis of DVO's report. Nothing is on the record that thereafter, any further inquiry is held/conducted by the Assessing Officer to form an opinion that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment with respect to the Capital gain

SHANTABEN PARASMAL JAIN,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 726/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shantaben Parasmal Jain, Vs. Dcit, 27, Vijay Society, Cir – 3(1), New Khanderao Road., Vadodara. Baroda. Pan No. Abwpj 8597 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prakash D. Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri S. N. Dev, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-I, Vadodara [“Cit(A)” In Short] Relevant To Assessment Year 2010- 11. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings & Therefore The Order Passed By The Learned Ao Is Required To Be Quashed. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Confirming The Disallowance Of Long Term Capital Gain Of Rs. 87,57,789/- As Exempt Income & Adding Back To The Total Income Of The Appellant & Therefore The Learned Ao Should Be Directed To Allow The Claim Of Exempt Income. 3. That The Appellant Craves Liberty To Add, Amend, Alter & Delete Any Grounds Of Appeal Before The Final Hearing.”

reopening of the assessment is dealt with first. 4.3.1. As can be seen from the assessment order as well as from the written submissions filed by the appellant's AR, the AO had received specific information from CCIT (Central-I) Mumbai that the appellant had shown Long Term Capital Gain

VICKY RAJESH JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

reopening related to transaction made with bogus concern of Shri Jignesh Shah. The head note of the order is as under: Section 68 read with section 148 of the income-tax Act 1961 Cash credit (Bogus sale of shares) Assessment year 2012-13 Assessee filed his return of income showing exemption of long term capital gain

SAGAR RAJESH JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

reopening related to transaction made with bogus concern of Shri Jignesh Shah. The head note of the order is as under: Section 68 read with section 148 of the income-tax Act 1961 Cash credit (Bogus sale of shares) Assessment year 2012-13 Assessee filed his return of income showing exemption of long term capital gain

VICKY RAJESH JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

reopening related to transaction made with bogus concern of Shri Jignesh Shah. The head note of the order is as under: Section 68 read with section 148 of the income-tax Act 1961 Cash credit (Bogus sale of shares) Assessment year 2012-13 Assessee filed his return of income showing exemption of long term capital gain

AARAV FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

reopening related to transaction made with bogus concern of Shri Jignesh Shah. The head note of the order is as under: Section 68 read with section 148 of the income-tax Act 1961 Cash credit (Bogus sale of shares) Assessment year 2012-13 Assessee filed his return of income showing exemption of long term capital gain

RAMILABEN GANPATBHAI PATEL,,AHMEDABD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Years : 2012-13 Ramilaben Ganpatbhai Patel, The Income-Tax Officer, 5, Rajsurya Bungalows, Vs Ward 3(3)(4), Nr. Fun Republic, Ramdevnagar, Ahmedabad Satellite, Ahmedabad-380051 Pan : Aaspp 2683 G Assessment Years : 2012-13 The Income-Tax Officer, Ramilaben Ganpatbhai Patel, Ward 3(3)(4), Vs 5, Rajsurya Bungalows, Ahmedabad Nr. Fun Republic, Ramdevnagar, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380051 Pan : Aaspp 2683 G अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.C. Shah, Ar & Shri Bhadresh Gandhakwala, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26/04/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-:

assessment, however, was subsequently reopened by him on the basis of information received that the assessee had sold an immovable property along with other co-owners for a total consideration of Rs.5,11,50,000/- as per the sale deed dated 29.07.2011 (valuation for the purpose of stamp duty Rs.6,11,49,300/-) and the capital gain

ITO, WARD-3(3)(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. SMT. RAMILABEN G. PATEL,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Years : 2012-13 Ramilaben Ganpatbhai Patel, The Income-Tax Officer, 5, Rajsurya Bungalows, Vs Ward 3(3)(4), Nr. Fun Republic, Ramdevnagar, Ahmedabad Satellite, Ahmedabad-380051 Pan : Aaspp 2683 G Assessment Years : 2012-13 The Income-Tax Officer, Ramilaben Ganpatbhai Patel, Ward 3(3)(4), Vs 5, Rajsurya Bungalows, Ahmedabad Nr. Fun Republic, Ramdevnagar, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380051 Pan : Aaspp 2683 G अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.C. Shah, Ar & Shri Bhadresh Gandhakwala, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26/04/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-:

assessment, however, was subsequently reopened by him on the basis of information received that the assessee had sold an immovable property along with other co-owners for a total consideration of Rs.5,11,50,000/- as per the sale deed dated 29.07.2011 (valuation for the purpose of stamp duty Rs.6,11,49,300/-) and the capital gain

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reopen and/or assess the return with respect to six preceding years; however, there must be some incriminating material available with the Assessing Officer with respect to the sale transactions in the particular assessment year 20. For the foregoing reasons, it is not possible to state that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reopen and/or assess the return with respect to six preceding years; however, there must be some incriminating material available with the Assessing Officer with respect to the sale transactions in the particular assessment year 20. For the foregoing reasons, it is not possible to state that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reopen and/or assess the return with respect to six preceding years; however, there must be some incriminating material available with the Assessing Officer with respect to the sale transactions in the particular assessment year 20. For the foregoing reasons, it is not possible to state that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reopen and/or assess the return with respect to six preceding years; however, there must be some incriminating material available with the Assessing Officer with respect to the sale transactions in the particular assessment year 20. For the foregoing reasons, it is not possible to state that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reopen and/or assess the return with respect to six preceding years; however, there must be some incriminating material available with the Assessing Officer with respect to the sale transactions in the particular assessment year 20. For the foregoing reasons, it is not possible to state that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reopen and/or assess the return with respect to six preceding years; however, there must be some incriminating material available with the Assessing Officer with respect to the sale transactions in the particular assessment year 20. For the foregoing reasons, it is not possible to state that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reopen and/or assess the return with respect to six preceding years; however, there must be some incriminating material available with the Assessing Officer with respect to the sale transactions in the particular assessment year 20. For the foregoing reasons, it is not possible to state that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reopen and/or assess the return with respect to six preceding years; however, there must be some incriminating material available with the Assessing Officer with respect to the sale transactions in the particular assessment year 20. For the foregoing reasons, it is not possible to state that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reopen and/or assess the return with respect to six preceding years; however, there must be some incriminating material available with the Assessing Officer with respect to the sale transactions in the particular assessment year 20. For the foregoing reasons, it is not possible to state that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity