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

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

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

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

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, 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

133/- to the income the assessee. The AO then examined allocation of employee benefit expenses to the Guwahati Unit, which was claiming deduction under section 80-IE of the Act. The AO observed that while the assessee allocated depreciation and other common expenses in the ratio of Guwahati sales to total sales, assessee adopted a different method division only

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (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

133/- to the income the assessee. The AO then examined allocation of employee benefit expenses to the Guwahati Unit, which was claiming deduction under section 80-IE of the Act. The AO observed that while the assessee allocated depreciation and other common expenses in the ratio of Guwahati sales to total sales, assessee adopted a different method division only

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

133/- to the income the assessee. The AO then examined allocation of employee benefit expenses to the Guwahati Unit, which was claiming deduction under section 80-IE of the Act. The AO observed that while the assessee allocated depreciation and other common expenses in the ratio of Guwahati sales to total sales, assessee adopted a different method division only

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

133/- to the income the assessee. The AO then examined allocation of employee benefit expenses to the Guwahati Unit, which was claiming deduction under section 80-IE of the Act. The AO observed that while the assessee allocated depreciation and other common expenses in the ratio of Guwahati sales to total sales, assessee adopted a different method division only

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

133/- to the income the assessee. The AO then examined allocation of employee benefit expenses to the Guwahati Unit, which was claiming deduction under section 80-IE of the Act. The AO observed that while the assessee allocated depreciation and other common expenses in the ratio of Guwahati sales to total sales, assessee adopted a different method division only

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

133/- to the income the assessee. The AO then examined allocation of employee benefit expenses to the Guwahati Unit, which was claiming deduction under section 80-IE of the Act. The AO observed that while the assessee allocated depreciation and other common expenses in the ratio of Guwahati sales to total sales, assessee adopted a different method division only

ILABAHEN VIRALKUMAR MEHTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The

Section 133(6). As per the statement received by the AO from M/s Jhaveri Securities Limited , the assessee has bought 23000 shares of Hemo Organics Limited during the year under consideration and sold 8000 shares during the year, making capital gain

SANDEEP MOHANRAJ SINGHI,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE4(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 133(6) of the Act and it transpired that the source of fund for purchase of shares was capital infusion from its shareholder Components Agent Asia Holding Limited, Mauritius. The Assessing Officer also noticed that Arrow had filed its audit report only after initiation of enquiry proceedings in the case of the assessee. Considering the fact that there

VINIT BIPINCHANDRA SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3) (PREVIOUSLY WARD-5(2)(4)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 133(6) of the Act by the concerned Jeweller in the course of remand proceedings. Sale of gold bar was not under dispute as the sale proceeds was received by the assessee in his bank account through cheques. Considering the fact that the assessee had brought on record the evidence for purchase of gold bar, the sale proceeds

ABHAYKUMAR SEVANTILAL SANGHAVI,DEESA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE- PALANPUR , PALANPUR

Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1367/Ahd/2024 & 1368/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Abhaykumar Sevantilal Acit Circle, Palanpur बनाम/ Sanghavi [Old Jurisdiction-Circle, V/S. Sanghavi Brothers Palanpur. 1St Floor, Swastik Bldg New Jurisdiction-Circle, Nr. City Police Station Gandhinagar.] Nr. Dena Bank, Main Bazar Deesa – 385 535 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afbps 1660 L (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Pertain To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2016-17 & 2017-18. Since The Issues Involved Are Common & Connected, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. The Appeals Arise Out Of The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The

133(6) of the Act or summon the lenders under Section 131 of the Act to verify the cash deposits or their sources. This crucial step, which could have resolved any doubt regarding the lenders’ creditworthiness, was not undertaken by the AO. 16.1. It is a settled legal position, as held by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court