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

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

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

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

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 68 were accordingly

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

1) of the Act. Later, a report from the Investigation Wing,\nAhmedabad was received by the Assessing Officer (AO), which contained\ninformation regarding accommodation entries and manipulation of penny\nstock transactions allegedly carried out by the Kushal Group of Companies.\nBased on this information, the AO noted that the assessee was one of the\nbeneficiaries of such accommodation\nentries

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

1) of the Act. Later, a report from the Investigation Wing,\nAhmedabad was received by the Assessing Officer (AO), which contained\ninformation regarding accommodation entries and manipulation of penny\nstock transactions allegedly carried out by the Kushal Group of Companies.\nBased on this information, the AO noted that the assessee was one of the\nbeneficiaries of such accommodation\nentries

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

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

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, 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

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

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

PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, 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

PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHEMEDABAD

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

PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, 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

PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CC (1) AHMEDABAD, 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

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