SHAILESH S. JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Capital Gains (LTCG), in the shares of various listed companies managed and controlled. This is done by him by resorting to synchronized trading using the infrastructure of companies and some individuals whose Bank and De-mat accounts are controlled by him. It was found that he .has provided accommodation entries in respect of shares of Chandni Textiles Engineering Industries Limited

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

capital gain on the sale/purchase of shares, and the same was exempt u/s. 10(38). It was submitted that ld PCIT has observed during revisionary proceedings that the AO did not call for and verify the demat account. It was submitted that the demat account was duly submitted before the ld. PCIT during the course of revisionary proceedings

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

133A – Statements & - Statement of assessee 12/13.02.2019 (B- Voluntary recorded u/s. 131 on Safal Group) Disclosure 13.02.2019. - Group disclosed Rs.50.03 crore as additional income. - Assessee’s share: Rs.1.04 crore (A.Y. 2018- 19) and Rs. 2.30 crore (A.Y. 2019-20). Search u/s. 132 – Loose Papers & - Negotiation papers for 15.10.2019 (Land Digital Data sale of Makarba land Broker & Financier (Vol. XI – pages parcels

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

133A – Statements & - Statement of assessee 12/13.02.2019 (B- Voluntary recorded u/s. 131 on Safal Group) Disclosure 13.02.2019. - Group disclosed Rs.50.03 crore as additional income. - Assessee’s share: Rs.1.04 crore (A.Y. 2018- 19) and Rs. 2.30 crore (A.Y. 2019-20). Search u/s. 132 – Loose Papers & - Negotiation papers for 15.10.2019 (Land Digital Data sale of Makarba land Broker & Financier (Vol. XI – pages parcels

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

capital gain after\nenquiry is a plausible view on the record. The learned PCIT could not\nrevise the assessment to merely pursue a different characterisation\nwithout demonstrating both error and prejudice. The revision on this\nissue is quashed.\n8. Conclusion\n8.1 We have carefully perused the judicial pronouncements relied\nupon by the learned PCIT in support of his action under

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

capital gain after\nenquiry is a plausible view on the record. The learned PCIT could not\nrevise the assessment to merely pursue a different characterisation\nwithout demonstrating both error and prejudice. The revision on this\nissue is quashed.\n8. Conclusion\n8.1 We have carefully perused the judicial pronouncements relied\nupon by the learned PCIT in support of his action under

N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

133A of the Act, and that the modus operandi adopted by NK Proteins and its clients was explained by him. The relevant para is para 7.6 of the order. The same is summarized as under:- I) NK Proteins is Member Broker on NSEL. II) NK Inds. being client of NK Proteins executes T+3 contract on the electronic platform

N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

133A of the Act, and that the modus operandi adopted by NK Proteins and its clients was explained by him. The relevant para is para 7.6 of the order. The same is summarized as under:- I) NK Proteins is Member Broker on NSEL. II) NK Inds. being client of NK Proteins executes T+3 contract on the electronic platform

THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1)., AHMEDABAD vs. N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

133A of the Act, and that the modus operandi adopted by NK Proteins and its clients was explained by him. The relevant para is para 7.6 of the order. The same is summarized as under:- I) NK Proteins is Member Broker on NSEL. II) NK Inds. being client of NK Proteins executes T+3 contract on the electronic platform

THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1)., AHMEDABAD vs. N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

133A of the Act, and that the modus operandi adopted by NK Proteins and its clients was explained by him. The relevant para is para 7.6 of the order. The same is summarized as under:- I) NK Proteins is Member Broker on NSEL. II) NK Inds. being client of NK Proteins executes T+3 contract on the electronic platform

SANJAYBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

capital gain. Search action under Section 142 of the Act was carried out in the group case of Shayona Group on 15.10.2013 in which documents showing to a land transaction was found which pertained to all partners of the firm M/s. Shayona Land Corporation. The residence of premises of all the partners were covered under search action except that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

133A was conducted in the case of Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust and Parul University on 31/01/2017. 2. During the survey, various incrimination documents were found along with data in the form of MS Excel files and impounded which show that the trustees of Parul Group were involved in the practice of receiving back the portion of salary paid

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST, , AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

133A was conducted in the case of Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust and Parul University on 31/01/2017. 2. During the survey, various incrimination documents were found along with data in the form of MS Excel files and impounded which show that the trustees of Parul Group were involved in the practice of receiving back the portion of salary paid

PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

133A was conducted in the case of Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust and Parul University on 31/01/2017. 2. During the survey, various incrimination documents were found along with data in the form of MS Excel files and impounded which show that the trustees of Parul Group were involved in the practice of receiving back the portion of salary paid

PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

133A was conducted in the case of Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust and Parul University on 31/01/2017. 2. During the survey, various incrimination documents were found along with data in the form of MS Excel files and impounded which show that the trustees of Parul Group were involved in the practice of receiving back the portion of salary paid

PARUL UNIVERSITY,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT,EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

133A was conducted in the case of Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust and Parul University on 31/01/2017. 2. During the survey, various incrimination documents were found along with data in the form of MS Excel files and impounded which show that the trustees of Parul Group were involved in the practice of receiving back the portion of salary paid

VINODBHAI LAXMANBHAI PITHIYA,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1) (PREVIOUSLY THE ITO- WARD-1(2)(5)), VADODARA

In the result, this ground of appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

133A of the Act was carried out in the case of the assessee on 06.03.2018. During the course of survey proceedings, in the statement recorded on oath under Section 131(1) of the Act, the assessee was asked to explain the adjustment of business losses of Rs. 89,39,413/- against Short Term Capital Gain

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), AHMEDABAD vs. DARSHANBHAI MANUBHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gains and other sources. He filed his return of income for the year under consideration disclosing income at Rs. 1,71,01,110/- on 31.10.2017. A survey under Section 133A