SHRI AJAY REGHUBHAI BHARWAD,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessees are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 45(1) of the act, any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year I.T.A No. 595, 596 & 597/Ahd/2020 A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11 Page No 10 Shri Piyush M. Dobariya vs. ITO & Ors. shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains" with certain conditions and exemptions

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

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

133(6) nor\nany summons under section 131 was issued to cross-verify the transaction.\nInstead, the Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure merely on the basis\nof conjecture and surmise. The Counsel submitted that both the Assessing\nOfficer and the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the expenditure was\nsupported by records and confirmations and that the disallowance made

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI MAHESH SOMABHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

capital gain shown by the assessee. Likewise we also note that the assessee has discharged the onus imposed under section 68 of the Act by furnishing the necessary documentary evidence in support of the identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the parties. Therefore the same cannot be made subject to tax under the provisions of section

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 gains in a short period, does not mean that the transaction is bogus as all the documents and evidences have been produced. (viii) The opportunity of cross examination has not been extended to the assessee despite having the request from the assessee. 7.7 It is also important to note that the assessee was holding 10 lakh shares M/s AGIL

THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(4), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI NILESHKUMAR DASHRATHBHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gain shown by the assessee. Likewise we also note that the assessee has discharged the onus imposed under section 68 of the Act by furnishing the necessary documentary evidence in support of the identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the parties. Therefore the same cannot be made subject to tax under the provisions of section

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

133(6) was issued to the appellant for cross inquiry regarding transactions with Narendra K Patel for A.Y. 2014-15 to A.Y. 2020-21. The Ld. PCIT has not considered the reply dated 13.04.2021 filed by the appellant in response to the notice issued u/s. s.133(6) of the Act being cross enquiry in the case of Shri Suresh Thakkar

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

133(6) was issued to the appellant for cross inquiry regarding transactions with Narendra K Patel for A.Y. 2014-15 to A.Y. 2020-21. The Ld. PCIT has not considered the reply dated 13.04.2021 filed by the appellant in response to the notice issued u/s. s.133(6) of the Act being cross enquiry in the case of Shri Suresh Thakkar

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

capital gain in the event the assessee makes the sale of its bungalow in dispute. It is because the revenue has not doubted on the incurrence of such expenses while framing the assessment. Besides the above, all the necessary details of the construction expenses were made available to the authorities below along with the addresses and the payments were made

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD., AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

6 ITA Nos. 413,445,268&318/Ahd/2016 and 446/Ahd/2016 ( AY 2012-13) AYs: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 1168/Ahd/2011 decided on 11.07.2014 for AY 2006-07 grants identical depreciation relief. We also draw support therefrom for allowing the impugned depreciation claimed. This ground is accepted. 14. This leaves us with assessee’s last substantive ground challenging Section

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN ANAGRAM STOCK BROKING LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

6 ITA Nos. 413,445,268&318/Ahd/2016 and 446/Ahd/2016 ( AY 2012-13) AYs: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 1168/Ahd/2011 decided on 11.07.2014 for AY 2006-07 grants identical depreciation relief. We also draw support therefrom for allowing the impugned depreciation claimed. This ground is accepted. 14. This leaves us with assessee’s last substantive ground challenging Section

M/S. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD. ( AMALGAMATING COMPANY EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-3,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

6 ITA Nos. 413,445,268&318/Ahd/2016 and 446/Ahd/2016 ( AY 2012-13) AYs: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 1168/Ahd/2011 decided on 11.07.2014 for AY 2006-07 grants identical depreciation relief. We also draw support therefrom for allowing the impugned depreciation claimed. This ground is accepted. 14. This leaves us with assessee’s last substantive ground challenging Section

SHRI KAUSHALKUMAR GANGARAM PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(12), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

gain arising on sale of these lands are required to taxed as per the provisions of the Act. 5 . A.Y. 2014-15 7. Even other-wise also, with a view to verify the fact that whether the aforesaid land situated at Adalaj sold during the year under consideration was Capital Asset or not as per the provisions of section

M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, (OSD) CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1582/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S. Venus Infrastructure & D.C.I.T.,(Osd) Developers (P) Ltd., Vs. Central Circle-8, 801-802, Broadway Business Ahmedabad. Centre, Opp. Mayor’S Bungalow, Law Garden Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aahcs6254J

gain on transfer of share after claiming indexed cost of acquisition as the holding period of shares by assessee was for more than 12 month by virtue of proviso to section 2(42A) of the Act read with section 2(29A) of the Act. Thus, the assessee choses one option out of two legally permissible options which it deem most

SHAILESH M PATEL-HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 280/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Shailesh M. Patel Huf, Income Tax Officer, C/O Ketan H. Shah, Advocate, Vs. Ward-3(3)(5), 512, Times Square-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Ram Baug Bunglow, Thaltej Shilaj Road, Ahmedabad.

capital gains in a short period, does not mean that the transaction is bogus as all the documents and evidences have been produced. (x) Opportunity of cross examination was not given which was essential for deciding the issue on hand. 8.5 In our view, just the modus operandi, generalisation, preponderance of human probabilities cannot be the only basis for rejecting

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

133(6) was issued to the appellant for cross\ninquiry regarding transactions with Narendra K Patel for A.Y.\n2014-15 to A.Y. 2020-21. The Ld. PCIT has not considered the\nreply dated 13.04.2021 filed by the appellant in response to the\nnotice issued u/s.133(6) of the Act being cross enquiry in the case\nof Shri Suresh Thakkar wherein

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

133(6) was issued to the appellant for cross\ninquiry regarding transactions with Narendra K Patel for A.Y.\n2014-15 to A.Y. 2020-21. The Ld. PCIT has not considered the\nreply dated 13.04.2021 filed by the appellant in response to the\nnotice issued u/s.133(6) of the Act being cross enquiry in the case\nof Shri Suresh Thakkar wherein

ALPA UDAYKUMAR SHAH,,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2),, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Memebr

capital gain shown by the assessee. Likewise we also note that the assessee has discharged the onus imposed under section 68 of the Act by furnishing the necessary documentary evidence in support of the identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the parties. Therefore the same cannot be made subject to tax under the provisions of section

PARIKH AMITKUMAR MAHENDRABHAI,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Parikh Amitkumar Mahendrabhai The Dcit 6, Alaknanda Society Circle 1(1)(1) Sama, Vadodara 390 008. Vadodara. Pan : Acppp 2527 G (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Pate, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

capital gain account. On perusal of the bank statement, the Assessing Officer found that a payment of Rs.15,00,000/- had been made on 31.03.2017, which according to him fell beyond the prescribed period 3 of two years from the date of transfer for purchase under section 54. Notice under section 133(6