MR. JOBANJI THAKOR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO. WARD-3(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं/ITA No.264/Ahd/2019\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16\nMr. Jobanji Thakor\nThe ITO\nF-40, Abugiri Society\nबनाम / Ward-3(2)(2)\nTal. Daskroi, Jagatpur\nv/s.\nAhmedabad\nAhmedabad - 382 470\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AKNPT 2930 M\n(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)\nAssessee by:\nShri Mehul K. Patel, AR\nRevenue by :\nShri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR\nसुनवाई की तारीख/Date of

capital gain computation. The\nmain reason for scrutiny was that the sale consideration shown in the Income\nTax Return (ITR) was lower than the valuation by the Stamp Duty Authority.\nConsequently, notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 18.09.2017\nand served via speed post, with a hearing fixed on 03.10.2017. Subsequently,\nnotice under Section 142

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 and loss, both STCG/STCL and LTCG/LTCL as per their statements, their averments cannot be stretched/extended arbitrarily to mean that they are applicable to trading transactions also. 5. That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in not appreciating that the provisions of Section 132(4A) are applicable in case of Shri Shirish Shah

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 and loss, both STCG/STCL and LTCG/LTCL as per their statements, their averments cannot be stretched/extended arbitrarily to mean that they are applicable to trading transactions also. 5. That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in not appreciating that the provisions of Section 132(4A) are applicable in case of Shri Shirish Shah

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 and loss, both STCG/STCL and LTCG/LTCL as per their statements, their averments cannot be stretched/extended arbitrarily to mean that they are applicable to trading transactions also. 5. That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in not appreciating that the provisions of Section 132(4A) are applicable in case of Shri Shirish Shah

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

Capital Gain, which was accepted by the AO. Further, no revenue loss has occurred as the income would have been taxed at the same rate irrespective of the head of income under which it was offered." 5. The appellant humbly submit that the Ld. AO has conducted a detailed and thorough inquiry under Section 142

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

Capital Gain, which was accepted by the AO. Further, no revenue loss has occurred as the income would have been taxed at the same rate irrespective of the head of income under which it was offered." 5. The appellant humbly submit that the Ld. AO has conducted a detailed and thorough inquiry under Section 142

RAJENDRA HARJIVANDAS PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

gains. The section 54EC investment was required to be made within 6 months ie. on or before 21.04.2008. The appellant invested Rs. 50 lakhs in REC bonds on 31.12.2007 (F.Y. 2007-08, within the 6 M time limit) and Rs.50 lakhs in NHAI bonds on 26.5.2008 (F.Y. 2008-08, beyond the 6 M time limit) and claimed a deduction

THE ACIT. CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDBAD vs. RAJENDRA HARJIVANDAS PRAJAPATI, AHMEDBAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

gains. The section 54EC investment was required to be made within 6 months ie. on or before 21.04.2008. The appellant invested Rs. 50 lakhs in REC bonds on 31.12.2007 (F.Y. 2007-08, within the 6 M time limit) and Rs.50 lakhs in NHAI bonds on 26.5.2008 (F.Y. 2008-08, beyond the 6 M time limit) and claimed a deduction

THAKORBHAI MAGANBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD- 3(1)(1), VADODARA

capital gains.", "held": "The Tribunal noted that the Gujarat High Court had found serious doubts about the authenticity of certificates submitted by the assessee and upheld the reopening of assessment. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee had relied on falsified certificates and had a misleading conduct. The Tribunal set aside several grounds, including the nature of the asset, year

SHRI NAVINCHANDRA N. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

capital gain. (ii) Scrutiny of records, it was noticed from the assets of the balance sheet for AY 2012- 13 that there was an agricultural land amounting to Rs. 1.73,25,167 (including land purchased during the year R.S. no. 665/P/l for Rs. 15.54,000) under the head investment. However, the balance sheet of the previous 'year

RAJESHBHAI BHAGWANDAS PATEL,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5 (3) (2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, and the assessment order is quashed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13

capital gains”. The AO also recorded satisfaction for concealment of income and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Additionally, penalty under section 271(1)(b) was initiated for non-compliance with notices under section 142

SH. RAJESH NARENDRABHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(2), VADODARA, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13 Shri Rajesh Narendrabhai Patel Ito, Ward-1(2)(2) Baroda Bolt & Engineering Works Vadodara. Opp: Lalbaug Atitigruh Pratapnagar Vadodara Pan : Acqpp 6089 C (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : None : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Capital Gain 62,60,142/- 2.6 The AO disallowed the claim of deduction under section 54 and treated the entire

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. DEVAL PRANAV PATEL L/H. OF LATE SHRI PRANAV MAHENDRABHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2017-18

Capital Gain (LTCG) at Rs.7,57,24,817/- during the year under consideration as per the observation of the Assessing Officer. The reasons were recorded and notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 21.04.2021 was issued to the assessee calling for return of income for Assessment Year 2013-14. In response to the said notice

BINITABEN SANDIPKUMAR PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR.CIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Sejalben Patel The Pr.Cit-1 1049, Kantvalue Faliyu Vs. Vadodara. At & Po-Karkhadi Tal. Padra, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Drhpp 9550 D Asstt.Year : 2018-19 Binitaben Sandipkumar Patel The Pr.Cit-1 Javla, Chotra Pase Vs. Vadodara. Savli, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Cwopp 4609 Q (Applicant) (Responent)

section 142(1) were issued to which detailed replies were filed. The Assessing Officer applied his mind to the documents and explanations furnished, including the registered valuer's report, and thereafter accepted the capital gains

SEJALBEN PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR.CIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Sejalben Patel The Pr.Cit-1 1049, Kantvalue Faliyu Vs. Vadodara. At & Po-Karkhadi Tal. Padra, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Drhpp 9550 D Asstt.Year : 2018-19 Binitaben Sandipkumar Patel The Pr.Cit-1 Javla, Chotra Pase Vs. Vadodara. Savli, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Cwopp 4609 Q (Applicant) (Responent)

section 142(1) were issued to which detailed replies were filed. The Assessing Officer applied his mind to the documents and explanations furnished, including the registered valuer's report, and thereafter accepted the capital gains

SHAILESH NATVARLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19

capital gains declared in the return. The notice under section 143(2) was issued on 28.09.2019, followed by notice under section 142

HARSHADKUMAR HARGOVANDAS PATEL,KALOL vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

capital gain of ₹6,45,834/- and claimed\ndeduction of ₹3,05,400/- towards cost of improvement and transfer\nexpenses. On examination of the evidence furnished, the Assessing Officer\nfound that the bills submitted by the assessee were all handwritten, appeared\nto be in the same handwriting, and they apparently lacked necessary details\nsuch as PAN, TIN, or service

UNIMED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2016-17 Unimed Technologies Limited Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Survey No.22 & 22, Vs. Vadodara. Baska, Ujeti Halol Panchmahal Pan : Aaace 4022 B Asstt.Year : 2016-17 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Unimed Technologies Limited Vadodara. Vs. Survey No.22 & 22, Baska, Ujeti Halol Panchmahal Pan : Aaace 4022 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Assessee By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

142(1). The additions made by the Assessing Officer comprised the following: i. Software expenditure of Rs.31,96,245/- ii. Testing fees of Rs.50,29,391/- iii. Consultancy charges of Rs.2,18,58,050/- iv. Foreign exchange fluctuation loss of Rs.3,17,88,107/- v. Interest expenditure of Rs.1,76,03,597/- ITA No.623 and 632/Ahd/2024 3 4. Being aggrieved

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

Capital Gain, which\nwas accepted by the AO. Further, no revenue loss has occurred\nas the income would have been taxed at the same rate\nirrespective of the head of income under which it was offered.\"\n5. The appellant humbly submit that the Ld. AO has conducted a\ndetailed and thorough inquiry under Section 142