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

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

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 by documentary evidence such as demat statements, Gitaben Dineshbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year

NITABEN GIRISHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, while upholding the validity of reopening, we set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) on merits and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication in accordance with law

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Nitaben Girishbhai Patel The Ito, Ward-3(3)(2) 33/B, Swi Park, Private Plot Vejalpur Madhuvrund Society Ahmedabad. Ghatlodiya, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aappp 5738 F (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Assessee By : 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 gains as bogus. 2.5 The Assessing Officer further analysed the source of investment of Rs.19,68,683/- and compared it with the assessee’s returned incomes in earlier years, namely Rs.2,06,128/- in AY 2015-16 and Rs. 5,98,386/- in AY 2016-17 and concluded that the assessee’s disclosed income did not justify such investment

THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1)., AHMEDABAD vs. N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC), Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), Virtual 400 ITR 409 and 370 ITR 547 (SC). The Ld. A.R. also relied upon the decision

THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1)., AHMEDABAD vs. N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC), Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), Virtual 400 ITR 409 and 370 ITR 547 (SC). The Ld. A.R. also relied upon the decision

N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC), Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), Virtual 400 ITR 409 and 370 ITR 547 (SC). The Ld. A.R. also relied upon the decision

N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC), Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), Virtual 400 ITR 409 and 370 ITR 547 (SC). The Ld. A.R. also relied upon the decision

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

ACIT ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND, ANAND vs. ELECON ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD, VALLABH VIDYANAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Us.

capital gain 1,18,172 Less: Set off of Income from 1,52,01,468 other sources 2,38,86,742 Carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation ITA No. 2084/Ahd/2024 [ACIT vs. Elecon Engineering Company Ltd.] A.Y. 2020-21 - 5 – 9. From the above table its apparent that full effect of depreciation was not given

ARUNABEN KISHORKUMAR MANDALIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT, CENTRAL, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1052 To 1054/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Arunaben Kishorkumar Mandalia, The Principal बनामVs 12, Ashwamegh-Iii, Commissioner Of . 132 Feet Ring Road, Income Tax (Central), Satellite, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Ablpm2848Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ( ""यथ" /Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M K Patel, With Shri Vartik Choksi, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit.Dr

gains of business, Section 40A(2)(b) does not apply to me. 13. Details of addition/disallowance made for scrutiny assessment occasions for the relevant assessment years and explain as to why similar addition/disallowance should not be made for the year under review. Please also furnish copy of order passed u/s.143(3)/147/154/263 of the Act, if any, for the relevant

ARUNABEN KISHORKUMAR MANDALIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT, CENTRAL, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1052 To 1054/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Arunaben Kishorkumar Mandalia, The Principal बनामVs 12, Ashwamegh-Iii, Commissioner Of . 132 Feet Ring Road, Income Tax (Central), Satellite, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Ablpm2848Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ( ""यथ" /Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M K Patel, With Shri Vartik Choksi, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit.Dr

gains of business, Section 40A(2)(b) does not apply to me. 13. Details of addition/disallowance made for scrutiny assessment occasions for the relevant assessment years and explain as to why similar addition/disallowance should not be made for the year under review. Please also furnish copy of order passed u/s.143(3)/147/154/263 of the Act, if any, for the relevant

ARUNABEN KISHORKUMAR MANDALIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT, CENTRAL, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1052 To 1054/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Arunaben Kishorkumar Mandalia, The Principal बनामVs 12, Ashwamegh-Iii, Commissioner Of . 132 Feet Ring Road, Income Tax (Central), Satellite, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Ablpm2848Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ( ""यथ" /Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M K Patel, With Shri Vartik Choksi, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit.Dr

gains of business, Section 40A(2)(b) does not apply to me. 13. Details of addition/disallowance made for scrutiny assessment occasions for the relevant assessment years and explain as to why similar addition/disallowance should not be made for the year under review. Please also furnish copy of order passed u/s.143(3)/147/154/263 of the Act, if any, for the relevant

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gains 11. Before us, the counsel for the assessee submitted that this ground is relevant only if ground number 14A and ground related to brokerage charges are allowed in favour of the Revenue, in the appeal filed by the Department. ITA No. 954/Ahd/2016, 1315/Ahd/2016, 1807/Ahd/2017 & 2033/Ahd/2017 Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. DCIT & DCIT/ACIT vs. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. Asst

THE ASST. CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gains 11. Before us, the counsel for the assessee submitted that this ground is relevant only if ground number 14A and ground related to brokerage charges are allowed in favour of the Revenue, in the appeal filed by the Department. ITA No. 954/Ahd/2016, 1315/Ahd/2016, 1807/Ahd/2017 & 2033/Ahd/2017 Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. DCIT & DCIT/ACIT vs. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. Asst

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

capital gains\n11. Before us, the counsel for the assessee submitted that this ground is\nrelevant only if ground number 14A and ground related to brokerage charges\nare allowed in favour of the Revenue, in the appeal filed by the Department.\nITA No. 954/Ahd/2016, 1315/Ahd/2016,\n1807/Ahd/2017 & 2033/Ahd/2017\nAmbalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. DCIT\n& DCIT/ACIT vs. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1)(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

capital gains\n11.\nBefore us, the counsel for the assessee submitted that this ground is\nrelevant only if ground number 14A and ground related to brokerage charges\nare allowed in favour of the Revenue, in the appeal filed by the Department.\nITA No. 954/Ahd/2016, 1315/Ahd/2016,\n1807/Ahd/2017 & 2033/Ahd/2017\nAmbalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. DCIT\n& DCIT/ACIT vs. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises

ZALAVADIYA KALUBHAI MOHANBHAI, HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountannt Member Assessment Year 2015-16

gain and short term capital losses booked by assessee in his books were pre-arranged method to evade taxes and launder money. The Assessing Officer therefore made addition Rs. 3,71,94,167/- in respect of sale transaction of M/s. JRI Industries and Infrastructure Ltd. (being scrip). I.T.A No. 806/Ahd/2024 Zalavadiya Kalubhai Mohanbhai, HUF, A.Y. 2015-16 4. Being aggrieved

MAXXIS RUBBER INDIA PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

172 taxmann.com 469 (Ahmedabad-Trib.). Copy of the order was placed before us. Referring to the same Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the facts of the said case was identical, in which revisionary power was exercised by the Ld. PCIT noting that the fact that the assessee had been allowed excess depreciation on account of the carry