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

164 taxmann.com 669 (Ahmedabad -\nTrib.), and Smt. Paramadevi Tekriwal v. ITO [2025] 172 taxmann.com 430\n(Ahmedabad - Trib.), wherein on identical facts it was held that the so-called\ngains from penny stock scrips were not genuine but represented unaccounted\nmoney in the guise of exempt capital gains, and additions made by the\nAssessing Officer under section

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

164 taxmann.com 669 (Ahmedabad - Trib.), and Smt. Paramadevi Tekriwal v. ITO [2025] 172 taxmann.com 430 (Ahmedabad - Trib.), wherein it has been categorically held that long-term capital gains arising from manipulated penny stock transactions, supported only by paper documentation, cannot be treated as genuine. 12. We note that the assessee contended that the transactions were genuine and duly supported

PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

164, lends a meaning that denial of entire exemption is not contemplated in Section 13. As there is no apparent violation of provisions of Section 13 as discussed herein above, benefit provided in Section 11 and 12 cannot be denied. 5.8 So far as the activities of the trust are genuine, and income of the trust are applied

PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

164, lends a meaning that denial of entire exemption is not contemplated in Section 13. As there is no apparent violation of provisions of Section 13 as discussed herein above, benefit provided in Section 11 and 12 cannot be denied. 5.8 So far as the activities of the trust are genuine, and income of the trust are applied

PARUL UNIVERSITY,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT,EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

164, lends a meaning that denial of entire exemption is not contemplated in Section 13. As there is no apparent violation of provisions of Section 13 as discussed herein above, benefit provided in Section 11 and 12 cannot be denied. 5.8 So far as the activities of the trust are genuine, and income of the trust are applied

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST, , AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

164, lends a meaning that denial of entire exemption is not contemplated in Section 13. As there is no apparent violation of provisions of Section 13 as discussed herein above, benefit provided in Section 11 and 12 cannot be denied. 5.8 So far as the activities of the trust are genuine, and income of the trust are applied

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

164, lends a meaning that denial of entire exemption is not contemplated in Section 13. As there is no apparent violation of provisions of Section 13 as discussed herein above, benefit provided in Section 11 and 12 cannot be denied. 5.8 So far as the activities of the trust are genuine, and income of the trust are applied

FALGUNI S. MEHTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee is\neligible to set-off losses incurred in the “futures and options” segment\nof Rs.4,07,195/- against “short term capital gains" on sale of shares\nand securities of Rs.5,90,935/-. Further, Ld. DR has also not brought\nanything on record to controvert the aforesaid facts during the course

BABULAL AMBALAL PATEL,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4 (PRESENT WARD-1), MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

164/- on account of Long term Capital gain in hands of Appellant is completely\nincorrect and illegal and the same be deleted in the interest of justice. The same please\nbe held accordingly.\n3.\nThe Learned AO has erred in passing the order invoking the provisions of\nSection 144 rws 147 of the Act. It is submitted that the Appellant

KAMINIBEN JAGDISHBHAI PATEL,ANAND vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ANAND, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms Suchitra Kamblekaminiben Jagdishbhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. 8, Akshar Bhuvan , Ward-1, Royal Park Opp. Aksharfarm, Anand. Pramukh Swami Marg, Anand-388001. [Pan :Awupp6590 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ak Khandelwal, Ar Respondent By: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.03.2026

Capital Gain” of Rs. 8,00,164/-. The assessee, being an NRI, could not reply to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer as well as by the Ld. CIT(A), which resulted in a summary assessment under section

CLAYKING MINERALS LLP,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-5, MEHSANA

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

gains in the hands of the seller as it is not considered as a capital asset itself. However, from the point of view of the “purchaser” of immovable property, as stated above, section 56(2)(x) mentions "any immovable property" which going by the plain words of the Statute, does not specifically exclude “agricultural land”. 10. In Nairin v. University

INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SURESHKUMAR BHIKALAL THAKKER, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed

section 68 where the assessee failed to establish\nthe identity and creditworthiness of counterparties and could not substantiate\nthe genuineness of steep price rise in shares of a company with no commercial\nworth. The ratio of this judgment squarely applies to the present case, as the\nassessee has completely failed to demonstrate the bona fides of the impugned\ntransactions

BALDEVBHAI LALABHAI LUHAR,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(2), PRATYAKSHAR BHAVAN,AHMEDABAD

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

gains tax was offered by the assessee in the return of income. Baldevbhai L Luhar vs. ITO Asst.Year 2015-16 - 5– 9. In response, the Ld.DR placed reliance on the observations of the AO and the Ld.CIT(A) in their respective orders. 10. The Ld.DR submitted before us that both the seller and the purchaser of the gold ornaments

VASANTIBEN CHIMANBHAI PATEL,PATAN vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE PALANPUR, PALANPUR

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

164/-(The Jantri valuation) as full value consideration as per provisions of 50C of the 1. T. Act. As the Valuation Officer has already done the valuation of the aforementioned property and it was noticed that land in question was purchased at amount of Rs.8,40,000/- during the F.Y.2009-10, the calculation of the income under head capital gain

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. DEEPAK JYOTIPRASAD CHIRIPAL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2014-15

section, a non-agriculturist cannot purchase an agricultural land in Gujarat and if the land is purchased for bonafide industrial purpose, then such land would be treated as non-agricultural land. The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order. I.T.A No. 566/Ahd/2025 Deepak Jyotiprasad Chiripal, A.Y. 2014-15 6. The ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) has followed

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

VIJAY RAJNIKANT PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gain which is beyond the mandate of the limited swutiny issued by the CBDT. Hence, the directions of the Id. PCIT which are beyond the selection criteria of scope of scrutiny for the instant year cannot be held to be legally valid." 3.11 Further, apart from the above referred rulings, various benches of this Hon'ble Tribunal has consistently

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

164 taxmann.com 663 (Bombay) (v) Ravindra Reddy Katamreddy vs. DCIT,(2024) 159 taxmann.com 5 (Bombay) (vi) Gigantic Mercantile P. Ltd. vs. ACIT, (2024) 165 taxmann.com 646 (Bombay) (ii) The second challenge to the reopening was on the ground that the reopening for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 was time barred in as much as u/s.149