SHAILESH SUBODHCHANDRA JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL 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

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

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

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 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI CHANDRAKANT L. PATEL,, BARODA

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Shri Chandrakant L. Patel, Central Circle 1(4), Vs 18/B, Saujanya Society, Ahmedabad Makarpura Tin Rasta, Vadodara-390 010 Pan : Ahzpp 6425 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr Dr Assessee By : Shri Mukund Bakshi, Ca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25/04/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2022

Capital Gain. 2. The assessee, in the present case, is an individual who filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 06.08.2010 declaring a total income of Rs.71,690/-. A search action under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” in short) and survey under Section 133A

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

NATVARLAL HARIBHAI PATEL,,GANDHIDHAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,GANDHINAGAR WARD-3,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

133A was conducted on 17.09.2010 at Juna Chora Pase, Kalol, based on the contents of the tax evasion petition. The statement of the assessee was recorded on 17.09.2010 by issuing summons under Section 131(1), but his statement remained un-concluded and the assessee was allowed to go at late night. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the assessee vide

NATVARLAL HARIBHAI PATEL,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

133A was conducted on 17.09.2010 at Juna Chora Pase, Kalol, based on the contents of the tax evasion petition. The statement of the assessee was recorded on 17.09.2010 by issuing summons under Section 131(1), but his statement remained un-concluded and the assessee was allowed to go at late night. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the assessee vide

LATE NATWARBHAI HARIBHAI PATEL, (REP. BY L R TARIK N. PATEL),GANDHINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

133A was conducted on 17.09.2010 at Juna Chora Pase, Kalol, based on the contents of the tax evasion petition. The statement of the assessee was recorded on 17.09.2010 by issuing summons under Section 131(1), but his statement remained un-concluded and the assessee was allowed to go at late night. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the assessee vide

SHRI NATVARLAL HARIBHAI PATEL,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

133A was conducted on 17.09.2010 at Juna Chora Pase, Kalol, based on the contents of the tax evasion petition. The statement of the assessee was recorded on 17.09.2010 by issuing summons under Section 131(1), but his statement remained un-concluded and the assessee was allowed to go at late night. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the assessee vide

SHRI NATVARLAL HARIBHAI PATEL,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ACIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

133A was conducted on 17.09.2010 at Juna Chora Pase, Kalol, based on the contents of the tax evasion petition. The statement of the assessee was recorded on 17.09.2010 by issuing summons under Section 131(1), but his statement remained un-concluded and the assessee was allowed to go at late night. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the assessee vide