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

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

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

DILIP MOHANDAS DEVANI,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our above directions

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

140 days in filing the present appeal before us. In the Affidavit, the assessee has stated that although the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was passed on 6th August 2024, the assessee became aware of the order only on 10th December 2024 only upon receipt of the demand notice. The assessee has submitted that no physical copy

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDABAD vs. DEVRAJ HARSHADRAY PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gain arose with regard to sale of the aforementioned property.” 7. Even Ld. D.R. has accepted that the aforesaid addition is liable to be deleted in terms of aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(A), in the case of co-owner of this property. 8. In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed. Ground

LATE SMT. RAMILABEN HARSHADRAI PATEL(THROUGH L/H DEVRAJ H.PATEL),AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gain arose with regard to sale of the aforementioned property.” 7. Even Ld. D.R. has accepted that the aforesaid addition is liable to be deleted in terms of aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(A), in the case of co-owner of this property. 8. In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed. Ground

DEVRAJ HARSHADRAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gain arose with regard to sale of the aforementioned property.” 7. Even Ld. D.R. has accepted that the aforesaid addition is liable to be deleted in terms of aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(A), in the case of co-owner of this property. 8. In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed. Ground

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1285 & 1286/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & Ita No.1396 & 1397/Ahd/2018 Asstt.Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent House Ahmedabad. Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1327 & 1328/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1414 & 1415/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. Torrent House Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Choksi, With Shri Biren Shah, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Mohd. Usman, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/11/2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench

section (5) of Section 80-IA. In this case, the question that arose for consideration ITA.Nos.1285/Ahd/2017 & 7 others A.Y.2009-10 38 before this Court related to computation of the profits for the purpose of deduction under section 80-E, as it then existed, after setting off the loss incurred by the assessee in the manufacture of alloy steels. Section