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 or loss to various entities. This information was revealed during search and seizure action u/s.132 of the Act conducted

SATYA SANKALP VILLA (ELLISBRIDGE) PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1132/Ahd/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05) िनधा"रण वष" Satya Sankalp Villa The Income Tax Officer बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Ward – 8(1), Ahmedabad (Ellisbridge) P. Ltd. Vs. Dharmadev House, Shyamal Cross Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaics2707B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Mahesh Chhajed, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/06/2024 24/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xiv, Ahmedabad (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 16.01.2014 For A.Y. 2004-05. 2. This Is Second Round Of Appeal Before This Tribunal. Before We Adjudicate The Grounds Taken By The Assessee In This Appeal, It Will Be Relevant To Recapitulate The Facts Of The Case.

seizure from the searched person belonged to the other ITA No. 1132/Ahd/2014 (Satya Sankalp Villa (Ellisbridge) P. Ltd. vs. ITO) A.Y.– 2004-05 - 10 – person and transmitting such material to the Assessing Officer of the other person was mandatory. Such satisfaction was recorded by the AO of the “searched person” in this case and the documents were transmitted

OVEZ ARIFBHAI LAKHANI,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Benches, Has Arisen From The Revisionary Order Dated 12.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Principal

search and seizure action u/s 132 was conducted in the case of Jatia Group and other related entities on 17.04.2018 . The premises of the KDJHRL was also covered u/s 133A . The said company KDJHRL is a recognized penny stock with scrip code 530701 engaged in providing bogus long term capital gain/loss to various entities. The assessee

MODERN CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

capital gain over the sale of property\nundertook the whole act.\"\n14. The Department's submission regarding the AO of the assessee\nand AO of the searched person being the samevide letter dated\n9.5.2024 is reproduced hereunder:\nIn this regard, it is submitted that for the sake of clarification sort by the\nHon'ble Tribunal vide its order dated

THE UNITED BUILDERS CORPORATION ,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

capital gain over the sale of property\nundertook the whole act.\"\n14. The Department's submission regarding the AO of the assessee\nand AO of the searched person being the samevide letter dated\n9.5.2024 is reproduced hereunder:\nIn this regard, it is submitted that for the sake of clarification sort by the\nHon'ble Tribunal vide its order dated

THE MODERN CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(4), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

capital gain over the sale of property\nundertook the whole act.\"\n14. The Department's submission regarding the AO of the assessee\nand AO of the searched person being the samevide letter dated\n9.5.2024 is reproduced hereunder:\nIn this regard, it is submitted that for the sake of clarification sort by the\nHon'ble Tribunal vide its order dated

GITABEN DINESHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

search and seizure operations in the Kushal Group of Ahmedabad, which revealed that the group was engaged in providing accommodation entries of bogus capital gains

RAJESH BALVANTRAI BRAHMBHATT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT(CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

capital gain, and the Assessing Officer, without making further inquiry, simply accepted the claim. The learned DR argued that the assessee’s stand is untenable for the reason that no copy of any ITA No.1157 to 1160/Ahd/2025 24 agreement or corroborative document was ever placed on record before the Assessing Officer to substantiate the basis of determining the alleged

RAJESH BALVANTRAI BRAHMBHATT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT(CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

capital gain, and the Assessing Officer, without making further inquiry, simply accepted the claim. The learned DR argued that the assessee’s stand is untenable for the reason that no copy of any ITA No.1157 to 1160/Ahd/2025 24 agreement or corroborative document was ever placed on record before the Assessing Officer to substantiate the basis of determining the alleged

M/S. BODAL CHEMICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

search and seizure action taken in its case u/s. 132 of the Act, the proceedings u/s. 147 got abated. The stay order by the Hon’ble High Court in respect of the same was automatically complied with by the operation of law. As a result, the proceedings u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) was not affected by the Hon’ble High

RANJITSINH KANUBHAI RATHOD,KALOL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT,NFAC PRESENT JURISDICTION THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Capital Gain. Though a search and seizure action was carried out in Kushal Group there was an independent inquiry and independent

RANJITSINH KANUBHAI RATHOD,KALOL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC PRESENT JURIDICTION THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Capital Gain. Though a search and seizure action was carried out in Kushal Group there was an independent inquiry and independent

RANJITSINH KANUBHAI RATHOD,KALOL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC PRESENT JURIDICTION THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Capital Gain. Though a search and seizure action was carried out in Kushal Group there was an independent inquiry and independent

RAJESH BALVANTRAI BRAHMBHATT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT(CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

capital\ngain. The AO, after examining the disclosure and the accompanying\ndetails, accepted such treatment. This acceptance, according to the\nAR, was not an inadvertent lapse but a conscious decision falling\nwithin the permissible domain of the Assessing Officer.\n6.4 The learned DR, however, strongly supported the findings of the\nlearned PCIT. It was contended that the assessee

RAJESH BALVANTRAI BRAHMBHATT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT(CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

capital\ngain. The AO, after examining the disclosure and the accompanying\ndetails, accepted such treatment. This acceptance, according to the\nAR, was not an inadvertent lapse but a conscious decision falling\nwithin the permissible domain of the Assessing Officer.\n6.4 The learned DR, however, strongly supported the findings of the\nlearned PCIT. It was contended that the assessee

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.

seizure action under section 132 of the Act dated 04-12-2014 carried out at the Barter/entry provider Group and the assessee was also part of search authorization. Accordingly, assessment proceedings under section 153A of the Act were initiated in the case of the assessee. However, the assessee did not file return of income in response to the notice issued

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.

seizure action under section 132 of the Act dated 04-12-2014 carried out at the Barter/entry provider Group and the assessee was also part of search authorization. Accordingly, assessment proceedings under section 153A of the Act were initiated in the case of the assessee. However, the assessee did not file return of income in response to the notice issued

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.

seizure action under section 132 of the Act dated 04-12-2014 carried out at the Barter/entry provider Group and the assessee was also part of search authorization. Accordingly, assessment proceedings under section 153A of the Act were initiated in the case of the assessee. However, the assessee did not file return of income in response to the notice issued