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)

capital gains computation and passed the reassessment order under section 147 r.w.s. 144B on 06.03.2023. The learned AR drew specific

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. BHAVESHKUMAR GIRISHBHAI BHANDARI, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

Appeal is allowed in ITA 978/Ahd/2025 and ITA\n978/Ahd/2025 as well

gains. The assessee failed to discharge the onus under Section 68 to prove the genuineness of the steep rise in share prices and the transactions.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "68", "10(38)", "115BBE", "271AAC", "143(1)", "143(3)", "144B", "37(1)", "147", "132", "132(4)", "131", "10(38)", "250" ], "issues": "Whether the Long-Term Capital

NRUPAL NARESHCHANDRA RAJA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gain he had earned during the year under consideration in his return of income, and thus, there was neither any income escaping assessment nor the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer has caused prejudice to the interest of the revenue. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it be so held that

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

section 263 of the Act.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for impugned assessment year on 30th September, 2014 , declaring income of Rs. 13,31,280/-. The Re-assessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B was passed by the Assessing Officer on 30th March, 2022 , wherein the returned income was accepted

VIMARSH PRAKASHBHAI VASAVADA,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2)(2), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes subject to payment of cost

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gains and exemption under section 54F with proper evidence. The Assessing Officer therefore treated the entire sale consideration of ₹25,12,46,239/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and taxed the same under section 115BBE. Consequently, an addition of ₹25,12,46,239/- was made to the returned income. Aggrieved by the assessment order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. BHAVESHKUMAR GIRISHBHAI BHANDARI, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed and the order of\nthe Assessing Officer is restored

144B of the Act on 16.09.2021, determining total\nincome at Rs.5,48,37,350/-. This included an addition of Rs.\n4,86,42,214/- under section 68 of the Act for unexplained cash credits and\nan addition of Rs.21,36,579/- for disallowance of certain expenses\nunder section 37(1) of the Act. Later, a report from the Investigation Wing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. GIRISHKUMAR AMRATLAL BHANDARI HUF, HIMATNAGAR, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed and the order of\nthe Assessing Officer is restored

144B of the Act on 16.09.2021, determining total\nincome at Rs.5,48,37,350/-. This included an addition of Rs.\n4,86,42,214/- under section 68 of the Act for unexplained cash credits and\nan addition of Rs.21,36,579/- for disallowance of certain expenses\nunder section 37(1) of the Act. Later, a report from the Investigation Wing

GITABEN DINESHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

144B of the Act. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 93,92,789/- under section 68 of the Act by treating the Long-Term Capital Gain

ROMABEN KEYUR THAKORE LEGAL HEIR OF LATE ANANDIBEN JITENDRABHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A), Who Has Confirmed The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer By Observing As Follows:

144B of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16. I.T.A No. 2605/Ahd/2025 Page no 2 A.Y. 2015-16 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2015-16 on 24.08.2015 declaring total income

SANJAY JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2014-2015 Sanjay Jayantilal Shah Ito, Ward-2(1)(1) 202/A, Shivalik 10 Vs. Vejalpur Opp: Sbi Zonal Office Ahmedabad. Ambawadi, Ahmedabad 380 015 Pan : Aktps 8891 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, Ars. : Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"], For The Assessment Year 2014–15, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 31.03.2022 Passed U/S 147 Read With Section 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Assessing Officer Or Ao"].

144B of the Act, and therefore, technically, the assessment cannot be treated as one made under section 144 of the Act. 4.1 It was, however, submitted that notwithstanding the above, the matter on merits involves examination of genuineness of the claim of exempt Long Term Capital Gains

RACHNA SANJAY SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT, AHMEDABAD -1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri/St.R. Senthil Kumar & Narendra Prasad Sinhaasst.Year :2014-2015 Rachana Sanjay Shah The Pr.Cit-1 72, Tapovan Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Manekbaug Hall Ambawadi Ahmedabad 380015. Pan : Amdps 6571 P

capital gain of Rs.92,12,772/- by manipulating trading by manipulating trading of penny stock, whereas the AO without making any verification accepted the reas the AO without making any verification accepted the reas the AO without making any verification accepted the returned income including bogus transaction, thereby reassessment returned income including bogus transaction, thereby reassessment returned income including bogus

NUTAN NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

144B of the Act on 29.08.2022 at the same income\nreturned by the assessee. While examining the assessment records, the\nPrincipal CIT noticed two major issues. First, the assessee had claimed\ndeduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act on the entire income of\n₹17,55,97,752/-, even though this income consisted of capital gains

ASHOK AMARNATH AGRAWAL,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gain which is totally contrary to the facts on record, which goes to prove that the Assessing Officer has not examined the income-tax return which is a primary document to be examined before issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Hence, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer suffers from latches and devoid of due diligence. Hence

ASHOK AMARNATH AGRAWAL,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gain which is totally contrary to the facts on record, which goes to prove that the Assessing Officer has not examined the income-tax return which is a primary document to be examined before issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Hence, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer suffers from latches and devoid of due diligence. Hence

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AAYAKAR BHAVAN NEAR SACHIN TOWER ANAND NAGAR ROAD VEJALPUR AHMEDABAD vs. DHWANI ALPESH SHAH, UGANDA PARK SOC, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue for A

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

Capital Gains (LTCG) generated through rigging of share price in the scrip of Kushal Tradelinks Limited (a company identified as an accommodation entry provider), the cases of the assessee were reopened by issuance of notices under section 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2021. 2.2 The reassessment proceedings were concluded by the Assessing Officer (NFAC), who passed orders under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD , AAYAKAR BHAVAN NEAR SACHIN TOWER ANAND NAGAR ROAD VEJALPUR AHMEDABAD vs. DHWANI ALPESH SHAH, UGANDA PARK SOC, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue for A

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

Capital Gains (LTCG) generated through rigging of share price in the scrip of Kushal Tradelinks Limited (a company identified as an accommodation entry provider), the cases of the assessee were reopened by issuance of notices under section 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2021. 2.2 The reassessment proceedings were concluded by the Assessing Officer (NFAC), who passed orders under section

RAHUL MONAL CHOKSHI,AHMEDABAD vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI PRESENT JURISDICTION : THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2016-17. I.T.A No. 1494/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 2 Rahul Monal Chokshi vs. ITO 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual filed his Return of Income for the Asst. Year

MOHAMMEDSAQIB AIYUB PUTHAWALA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2018-19. I.T.A No. 623/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 Page No 2 Mohammedsaqib Aiyub Puthawala. vs. PCIT 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return for A.Y. 2018-19 on 23-10-2018 declaring total

VIPUL KAMAL PRAKASH SUD,SIDHPUR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2021-22

capital gain arising on sale of basement, which cannot be treated as house property. The Ld. PCIT was of the opinion that the deduction under Section 54 claimed by the assessee against the sale of house property was not allowable as the basement which does not have basic amenities like bath-room, kitchen etc. cannot be treated as a residential