SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain. 21. On the other hand, stand of the assessee was being reflected from the answers he had given on 8.10.2010 when his statement was recorded under section 131 of the Act. He also filed reply explaining transaction. We deem it important to take note of the answers given to question no.78 and 79, which reads as under

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain. 21. On the other hand, stand of the assessee was being reflected from the answers he had given on 8.10.2010 when his statement was recorded under section 131 of the Act. He also filed reply explaining transaction. We deem it important to take note of the answers given to question no.78 and 79, which reads as under

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain. 21. On the other hand, stand of the assessee was being reflected from the answers he had given on 8.10.2010 when his statement was recorded under section 131 of the Act. He also filed reply explaining transaction. We deem it important to take note of the answers given to question no.78 and 79, which reads as under

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain. 21. On the other hand, stand of the assessee was being reflected from the answers he had given on 8.10.2010 when his statement was recorded under section 131 of the Act. He also filed reply explaining transaction. We deem it important to take note of the answers given to question no.78 and 79, which reads as under

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain. 21. On the other hand, stand of the assessee was being reflected from the answers he had given on 8.10.2010 when his statement was recorded under section 131 of the Act. He also filed reply explaining transaction. We deem it important to take note of the answers given to question no.78 and 79, which reads as under

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain. 21. On the other hand, stand of the assessee was being reflected from the answers he had given on 8.10.2010 when his statement was recorded under section 131 of the Act. He also filed reply explaining transaction. We deem it important to take note of the answers given to question no.78 and 79, which reads as under

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain. 21. On the other hand, stand of the assessee was being reflected from the answers he had given on 8.10.2010 when his statement was recorded under section 131 of the Act. He also filed reply explaining transaction. We deem it important to take note of the answers given to question no.78 and 79, which reads as under

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain. 21. On the other hand, stand of the assessee was being reflected from the answers he had given on 8.10.2010 when his statement was recorded under section 131 of the Act. He also filed reply explaining transaction. We deem it important to take note of the answers given to question no.78 and 79, which reads as under

JECHINS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED (IN LIQN.),,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is, thus, allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

gain which arose from transfer of capital asset which could be brought to tax under Section 45 r.w.s 48 of the Act. While dealing with the matter the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe as follows:- “19. It is also well-settled by this Court that the protection provided under Section 53A is only a shield

SHRI JAIPRAKASH DEVKINANDAN CHIRIPAL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 405/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Jaiprakash Devkinandan Chiripal, D.C.I.T, 283, New Cloth Market, Vs. Circle-1(1)(2) Outside Raipur Gate, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380002. Pan: Aajpa4564C

capital gain. 3.2 In response to questions put forward by AO, the assessee made following representations: 1) He has entered into an agreement for purchase of impugned land situated at Makarba with Khoadaji Mansingh bhai thakor and baldeji thakor on 15-02-2006 and paid an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the seller out of the total amount

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), , AHMEDABAD vs. SHAH INVESTORS HOME LTD,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

section 194J in respect of lease line charges after following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. reported in (2016) 383. In the light of the above facts and judicial findings, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue, therefore, this ground of appeal of the revenue

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. SHAH INVESTORS HOME LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross

section 194J in respect of lease line charges after following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. reported in (2016) 383. In the light of the above facts and judicial findings, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue, therefore, this ground of appeal of the revenue

SMT. SHARDABEN B. PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-5,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

capital gains. The assertions made in the revisional order against the assessee clearly forecloses the case against the assessee with finality leaving no scope with the AO to apply his own mind, while directing him to make all inquiries and investigations. The direction to AO make inquiries is ostensibly an empty formality leaving no liberty with AO ITA No. 1026/Ahd/18

ACIT CC 2(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. AISHA DHIRAJ GOGIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result: 50. To summarize the final outcome:

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha["ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" एवं "ी नरे" साद िस!ा, लेखा सद" के सम#।]

Capital Gains under section 10(38) of the Act, treating the underlying shares as "penny stocks"; and (iv) Addition on account of alleged on-money received on the sale of property in the Earth Erita project. These additions were made based on material allegedly found during the search action, including digital data like WhatsApp chats retrieved from third-party mobile

KISHORI PANKAJ AGARWAL,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , VADODARA, GUJARAT

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA (Accountant Member)

capital gains in a short period, does not mean that the transaction is bogus, as all the documents ---and evidences have been produced before assessing officer. The shares were sold in piece meal on tate through recognized stock exchange at quoted price. 23. Regarding the statement of Shri Anil Khemka, alleged entry provider, which is reproduced in Assessment Order

LALITA RAMNIRANJAN AGARWAL,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri TR Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nAnd Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member\nITA No. 662/Ahd/2023\nAssessment Year 2015-16\nLalita Ramniranjan Agarwal,\nB-201, Sandal Wood\nResidency, Urmi Char Rasta\nProductivity Road,\nVadodara-390020\nPAN: AECPA0173J\n(Appellant)\nThe ITO,\nWard-1(2)(4),\nVadodara\nVs\n(Respondent)\nAssessee by: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, A.R.\nRevenue by: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr. D.R.\nDate of hearing\n: 24-02-2025\nDate of pronouncement : 28-02-2025\nORD

capital gains in a short period, does not mean\nthat the transaction is bogus, as all the documents ---and evidences\nhave been produced before assessing officer. The shares were sold\nin piece meal on tate through recognized stock exchange at quoted\nprice.\n23. Regarding the statement of Shri Anil Khemka, alleged entry\nprovider, which is reproduced in Assessment Order

HASMUKHLAL ISHVARLAL PATEL,PATAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, PATAN

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Capital Gains" and added it back to the income of the assessee. The assessment was completed on ex-parte basis under section 144 of the Act at a total income of ₹18,85,140

HASMUKHLAL ISHVARLAL PATEL,PATAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, PATAN

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Capital Gains" and added it back to the income of the assessee. The assessment was completed on ex-parte basis under section 144 of the Act at a total income of ₹18,85,140