ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

119 taxmann.com 129 (Karnataka) / [2020] 275 Taxman 550 (Karnataka) / [2020] 428 ITR 52 (Karnataka), wherein the Hon’ble Court held that by virtue of section 115JB(5), all other provisions of the Act— including those governing computation of long-term capital gains

DCIE CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHEMDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

119 taxmann.com 129 (Karnataka) / [2020] 275 Taxman 550 (Karnataka) / [2020] 428 ITR 52 (Karnataka), wherein the Hon’ble Court held that by virtue of section 115JB(5), all other provisions of the Act— including those governing computation of long-term capital gains

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION - THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

119 taxmann.com 129 (Karnataka) / [2020] 275 Taxman 550 (Karnataka) / [2020] 428 ITR 52 (Karnataka), wherein the Hon’ble Court held that by virtue of section 115JB(5), all other provisions of the Act— including those governing computation of long-term capital gains

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCE LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

119 taxmann.com 129 (Karnataka) / [2020] 275 Taxman 550 (Karnataka) / [2020] 428 ITR 52 (Karnataka), wherein the Hon’ble Court held that by virtue of section 115JB(5), all other provisions of the Act— including those governing computation of long-term capital gains

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. BHAVESHKUMAR GIRISHBHAI BHANDARI, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

Appeal is allowed in ITA 978/Ahd/2025 and ITA\n978/Ahd/2025 as well

Capital Gains and Short-Term\nCapital Gains. The Assessing Officer observed that the price of the scrip had\nabnormally risen from Rs. 2 to Rs. 469 within a short span of time without\nany corresponding improvement in the financials of the company, which\ndemonstrated that the scrip was artificially rigged.\n7. Despite repeated opportunities, the assessee failed to provide

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT , BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed

119 taxmann.com 129 (Karnataka) / [2020] 275 Taxman\n550 (Karnataka) / [2020] 428 ITR 52 (Karnataka), wherein the Hon'ble\nCourt held that by virtue of section 115JB(5), all other provisions of the Act—\nincluding those governing computation of long-term capital gains

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed

119 taxmann.com 129 (Karnataka) / [2020] 275 Taxman\n550 (Karnataka) / [2020] 428 ITR 52 (Karnataka), wherein the Hon'ble\nCourt held that by virtue of section 115JB(5), all other provisions of the Act—\nincluding those governing computation of long-term capital gains

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. BHAVESHKUMAR GIRISHBHAI BHANDARI, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed and the order of\nthe Assessing Officer is restored

Capital Gains and Short-Term\nCapital Gains. The Assessing Officer observed that the price of the scrip had\nabnormally risen from Rs.2 to Rs.469 within a short span of time without\nany corresponding improvement in the financials of the company, which\ndemonstrated that the scrip was artificially rigged.\n7.\nDespite repeated opportunities, the assessee failed to provide any\nconvincing explanation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. GIRISHKUMAR AMRATLAL BHANDARI HUF, HIMATNAGAR, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed and the order of\nthe Assessing Officer is restored

Capital Gains and Short-Term\nCapital Gains. The Assessing Officer observed that the price of the scrip had\nabnormally risen from Rs.2 to Rs.469 within a short span of time without\nany corresponding improvement in the financials of the company, which\ndemonstrated that the scrip was artificially rigged.\n7.\nDespite repeated opportunities, the assessee failed to provide any\nconvincing explanation

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

119 (Calcutta), the Hon’ble High Court upheld the Revenue’s action in treating gains on sale of penny stock shares as unexplained income under section 68 where the assessee failed to establish Gitaben Dineshbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 9– the identity and creditworthiness of counterparties and could not substantiate the genuineness of steep price rise in shares

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.

119 Taxman 433 (SC), the Tribunal cancelled penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) on ground that Department had not discharged its burden of proving concealment and had simply rested its conclusion on assessee's act of voluntary surrender in good faith. The High Court, on reference, upheld Tribunal's findings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no interference

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.

119 Taxman 433 (SC), the Tribunal cancelled penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) on ground that Department had not discharged its burden of proving concealment and had simply rested its conclusion on assessee's act of voluntary surrender in good faith. The High Court, on reference, upheld Tribunal's findings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no interference

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.

119 Taxman 433 (SC), the Tribunal cancelled penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) on ground that Department had not discharged its burden of proving concealment and had simply rested its conclusion on assessee's act of voluntary surrender in good faith. The High Court, on reference, upheld Tribunal's findings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no interference

SHRI BALASHAH BAVA SANSTHA SARVAJANIK TRUST,ANAND vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gains and he could not, in such cases, refuse to grant relief under section 143 to the assessee on the technical plea that the assessee had not filed a revised return. It is so since the paramount duty of the Assessing Officer is to complete the assessments in accordance with law. It is all the more

SHRI BALASHAH BAVA SANSTHA SARVAJANIK TRUST,ANAND vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gains and he could not, in such cases, refuse to grant relief under section 143 to the assessee on the technical plea that the assessee had not filed a revised return. It is so since the paramount duty of the Assessing Officer is to complete the assessments in accordance with law. It is all the more

INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SURESHKUMAR BHIKALAL THAKKER, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed

capital gains. Consequently, the sale consideration of Rs.\n6,73,285/- was treated as unexplained income under section 69A of the Act.\nThe Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had failed to furnish any\nsatisfactory explanation for the abnormal increase in the share price and had\nmerely relied upon paper documents such as contract notes and bank\nstatements, which, according

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)

gains to various beneficiaries. The balance sheet of the company was also not strong. Thus was just a shell company used as tool by a particular group floated in the market to carry out artificial price variations. From analysis of data received from BSE, it was found that I.T.A Nos. 10 to 13/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2011-12 to 2012-13 Page

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)

gains to various beneficiaries. The balance sheet of the company was also not strong. Thus was just a shell company used as tool by a particular group floated in the market to carry out artificial price variations. From analysis of data received from BSE, it was found that I.T.A Nos. 10 to 13/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2011-12 to 2012-13 Page