DILIPKUMAR VITTHALDAS DESAI,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), VADODARA

Bench: The Tribunal Has Caused The Delay Of 87 Days In Filing The Appeal. The Assessee Enclosed The United States Passport Copy Of His Brother, Who Visited India In December 2023. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Stated In The Notarized Affidavit Thereby We Hereby Condone The Delay Of 87 Days In Filing The Above Appeals & Adjudicate The Cases On Merits.

Capital Gain of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved against the reassessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) with a delay. The delay was condoned by the Ld. CIT(A) and after considering reply filed by the assessee and the Affidavit by Shri Mahesh Vitthaldas Desai and Smt. Smita Mahesh Desai dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee

DILIPKUMAR VITTHALDAS DESAI,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(1)(1), VADODARA

Bench: The Tribunal Has Caused The Delay Of 87 Days In Filing The Appeal. The Assessee Enclosed The United States Passport Copy Of His Brother, Who Visited India In December 2023. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Stated In The Notarized Affidavit Thereby We Hereby Condone The Delay Of 87 Days In Filing The Above Appeals & Adjudicate The Cases On Merits.

Capital Gain of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved against the reassessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) with a delay. The delay was condoned by the Ld. CIT(A) and after considering reply filed by the assessee and the Affidavit by Shri Mahesh Vitthaldas Desai and Smt. Smita Mahesh Desai dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee

ACIT, GNR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR vs. VARSHABEN DHIRAJBHAI KORADIYA, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

160/-. Further the AO noticed that the assessee claimed Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.12,92,714/- on sale of diamonds having original cost of Rs.1,15,00,000/-. Since, the sale consideration was declared at Rs.7,85,07,000/-, the assessee was asked why not to treat balance Rs.7,72,14,286/- as income from other sources

HEMINA SANDIPKUMAR SHAH,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-2, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 21.08.2019. In response to the notices, the assessee filed return of income declaring income of Rs.7,12,160/-. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee derived income from partnership firm, sold immovable property and computed capital gain

ASHALATA KULSHRESTHA,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2016-17

160/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny on the ground that whether deduction from capital gain has been claimed correctly. The assessee declared heads of income from pension of Rs. I.T.A No. 1737/Ahd/2025 Ashalata Kulshrestha, A.Y. 2016-17 5,70,912/-, other source of Rs. 15,60,0000/- claimed deduction in chapter

VINIT BIPINCHANDRA SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3) (PREVIOUSLY WARD-5(2)(4)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

160/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny. In the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had shown Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs.41,55,131/- on sale of one flat, one godown & a gold-bar. The assessee had also claimed deduction under Section

JT. CTI (OSD), CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

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

gains would be determined in the prescribed manner. Rule 8AC has been prescribed for this purpose.  Section 55: Meaning of 'Cost of Acquisition' in case of Goodwill of Business or Profession has been amended to provide that • in case it is acquired from a previous owner, the cost would be the amount of purchase price paid. • in case

M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

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

gains would be determined in the prescribed manner. Rule 8AC has been prescribed for this purpose.  Section 55: Meaning of 'Cost of Acquisition' in case of Goodwill of Business or Profession has been amended to provide that • in case it is acquired from a previous owner, the cost would be the amount of purchase price paid. • in case

NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

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

gains would be determined in the prescribed manner. Rule 8AC has been prescribed for this purpose.  Section 55: Meaning of 'Cost of Acquisition' in case of Goodwill of Business or Profession has been amended to provide that • in case it is acquired from a previous owner, the cost would be the amount of purchase price paid. • in case

THE DCIT, CIR-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

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

gains would be determined in the prescribed manner. Rule 8AC has been prescribed for this purpose.  Section 55: Meaning of 'Cost of Acquisition' in case of Goodwill of Business or Profession has been amended to provide that • in case it is acquired from a previous owner, the cost would be the amount of purchase price paid. • in case

LATE SHRI RANJITSINH BHAWANSINH VAGHELA THRU L/H BHARATSINH R. VAGHELA,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3,, GANDHINAGAR

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gain was therefore computed at Rs. 3,79,67,406/-. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals) and contended that the Assessing Officer erred in adopting the cost of acquisition at Rs. 5 per sq. meter and in denying proper deductions under sections 54B and 54F. The CIT(Appeals) examined the valuation report, the submissions

SAURABH PRASANNAVADAN VAKIL,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(4)VADODARA(NOW DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)(1)) , VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 975/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15) बनाम/ Saurabh Prasannavadan Income Tax Officer Ward Vakil 1(2)(4) (Now Deputy Vs. E 402 Nilamber Commissioner Of Income Bellissimo, Vasna Bhayli Tax Road, Vadodara 391410, Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara Gujarat "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalpv8393C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Milin Mehta & Ms. Amrin Pathan, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By Ms. Ketki Desai, Sr. Dr : Date Of Hearing 26/09/2024 15/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 06.05.2024 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Filed His Original Return Of Income For A.Y. 2014-15 On 30.07.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,19,54,960/- & Subsequently A Revised Return With Total Income Of Rs.2,24,26,160/-. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income

160/-, wherein addition of Rs.50 Lakhs was made on account of excess deduction claimed u/s.54EC of the Act. 3. Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, which has been decided by the ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed

BHOGILAL BHAILALBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 613/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) बनाम/ Bhogilal Bhailalbhai The Pr. Commissioner Of Patel Income Tax-1 Vs. 475/2, Sagar Faliya, At & Vadodara Post Bhayali, Vadodara - 391410 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bkkpp3136R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Hemant Suthar, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Samir Tekriwal, Cit. Dr 19/11/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2024

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed the return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 31.08.2015 declaring total income of Rs.6,19,980/- and agricultural income of Rs. 1,94,450/-. The original assessment

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI RAMESH GOBARJI THAKOR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer Vs. Shri Ramesh Gobarji Thakor Ward-3 Sector 11 Gandhinagar. Gandhinagar. Pan : Aespt 3446 H (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/07/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

capital gain. Similarly for A.Y. 2010-11, the appellant has made available the copy of the assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s.147 of the Act in the case of Smt. Hansaben M. Patel which also reflected the addition of Rs.33,36,89,804/- being the aggregated amounts credited in the bank account with Indian Bank, Navrangpura Branch, Ahmedabad

M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-\n13 & 2013-14 filed by the assessee are partly allowed, while the appeal of the assessee\nfor AY 2014-15 is allowed

gains would be determined in the\nprescribed manner. Rule 8AC has been prescribed for this purpose.\nSection 55: Meaning of 'Cost of Acquisition' in case of Goodwill of Business or\nProfession has been amended to provide that\nin case it is acquired from a previous owner, the cost would be the\namount of purchase price paid.\nin case

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Capital Infusion. 55. The TPO found that the assessee during the year has made payment of share application money to the following AEs: S. Name of AE Amount in Rs. Date of Date of share No. payment allotted 1 Zao Torrent Pharma 20,51,66,850/- 08-08-2012 28-03-2013 2 Zao Torrent Pharma

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MANTHAN SHYAM GANATRA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

gain of 38,20,619/- and short term capital loss of Rs. 21,35,776/-. In response to the query of the AO relating to the business and profession of the assessee, it was submitted that the assessee was an architect and was also partner in a firm named and styled as Shree Real Estate Developers. The AO noted that

ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

capital,\nsuch limitation would become inapplicable (rather than the whole section\nbecoming inapplicable). It is submitted that it be so held now.\n3. The NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the ad-hoc\ndisallowance capped at Rs.10,00,000/- under Section 14A of the Act\nfollowing the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') order