THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN ANAGRAM STOCK BROKING LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Capital expenditures are often employed to improve operational efficiency, increase revenue in the long term, or make improvements to the existing assets of a company. Capital spending is different from other types of spending that focus on short-term operating expenses, such as overhead expenses or payments to suppliers and creditors. 115.2 Depreciation is used to expense the fixed asset

M/S. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD. ( AMALGAMATING COMPANY EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-3,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Capital expenditures are often employed to improve operational efficiency, increase revenue in the long term, or make improvements to the existing assets of a company. Capital spending is different from other types of spending that focus on short-term operating expenses, such as overhead expenses or payments to suppliers and creditors. 115.2 Depreciation is used to expense the fixed asset

RASIKBHAI RAMDAS PATEL,MEHSANA vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 98/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2011-2012 Rasikbhai Ramdas Patel, The Principal Commissioner Lal Vas, At. Thol, Vs. Of Income-Tax-3, Tal. Kadi, Ahmedabad Dist. Mehsana-382715. Gujarat.

4 transfer of land in dispute. Thus, the assessee on one hand is claiming that the land in dispute as agricultural land but on the other hand the assessee himself is offering income on the transfer of impugned land. 8. In view of the above the learned PCIT was of the view that the AO has not verified the applicability

SOMABHAI MOTIBHAI PATEL,GANDHINAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-4, GANDHINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Kamble

4 acquisition as on 1 April 1981 at ₹ 3,96,560.00 and prayed to consider the same while calculating the income under the head capital gain. 5. The learned CIT-A called for the remand report from the AO who in turn vide letter dated 6 September 2018 submitted that the assessee failed to bring any cogent reason to justify

KANTABEN GOVABHAI PATEL,GANDHINAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-2, GANDHINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Kamble

4 acquisition as on 1 April 1981 at ₹ 3,96,560.00 and prayed to consider the same while calculating the income under the head capital gain. 5. The learned CIT-A called for the remand report from the AO who in turn vide letter dated 6 September 2018 submitted that the assessee failed to bring any cogent reason to justify

BABUBHAI MOTIBHAI CHAUDHARY,GANDHINAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Kamble

4 acquisition as on 1 April 1981 at ₹ 3,96,560.00 and prayed to consider the same while calculating the income under the head capital gain. 5. The learned CIT-A called for the remand report from the AO who in turn vide letter dated 6 September 2018 submitted that the assessee failed to bring any cogent reason to justify

SHAILESHBHAI KALABHAI CHAUDHARY,GANDHINAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-4, GANDHINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Kamble

4 acquisition as on 1 April 1981 at ₹ 3,96,560.00 and prayed to consider the same while calculating the income under the head capital gain. 5. The learned CIT-A called for the remand report from the AO who in turn vide letter dated 6 September 2018 submitted that the assessee failed to bring any cogent reason to justify

SHANTABEN PARASMAL JAIN,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 726/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shantaben Parasmal Jain, Vs. Dcit, 27, Vijay Society, Cir – 3(1), New Khanderao Road., Vadodara. Baroda. Pan No. Abwpj 8597 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prakash D. Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri S. N. Dev, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-I, Vadodara [“Cit(A)” In Short] Relevant To Assessment Year 2010- 11. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings & Therefore The Order Passed By The Learned Ao Is Required To Be Quashed. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Confirming The Disallowance Of Long Term Capital Gain Of Rs. 87,57,789/- As Exempt Income & Adding Back To The Total Income Of The Appellant & Therefore The Learned Ao Should Be Directed To Allow The Claim Of Exempt Income. 3. That The Appellant Craves Liberty To Add, Amend, Alter & Delete Any Grounds Of Appeal Before The Final Hearing.”

Capital Gain shown by the appellant. Such information is on the basis of statement given by Mr. Mukesh Choksi and other incriminating documents found during the course of search in his group companies, which were found to be in the business of providing accommodation entries. Reopening of assessment under similar circumstances has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court

KANTILAL MANILAL PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia

172, Patel Vas Khadaki Ahmedabad. Chandlodia Ahmedabad 382 481 PAN : AICPP 1839 Q (Respondent) (Applicant) Assessee by : Shri S.N. Divetia, AR Revenue by : Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 04/07/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 08 /07/2019 आदेश/O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Assessee is in appeal before

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

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 upheld.\n10. The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

M/S. MID VALLEY HEALTH CARE SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assesseeis partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava&Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2524 & 2525/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years:2013-14 & 2014-15) Mid Valley Health Care Acit बनाम/ Cricle- 2(1)(2), Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ahmedabad 51, 5Th Floor, New York Tower, S.G. Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aae Cm7 777 K .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

4:- Disallowance of expenses of Rs. 2,79,788 in computation of short term capital gain under Sec. 48:- 6. During the course of assessment the AO has disallowed various expenses while computing short term capital gain arising on transfer of shares aggregating to Rs. 17,97,854/- on the ground that such expenses were not allowable

M/S. MID VALLEY HEALTH CARE SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assesseeis partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava&Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2524 & 2525/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years:2013-14 & 2014-15) Mid Valley Health Care Acit बनाम/ Cricle- 2(1)(2), Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ahmedabad 51, 5Th Floor, New York Tower, S.G. Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aae Cm7 777 K .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

4:- Disallowance of expenses of Rs. 2,79,788 in computation of short term capital gain under Sec. 48:- 6. During the course of assessment the AO has disallowed various expenses while computing short term capital gain arising on transfer of shares aggregating to Rs. 17,97,854/- on the ground that such expenses were not allowable

POPULAR ESTATE MANAGEMENT LTD.,(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS PIONEER TECHNOPARK LTD),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2703/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13) Popular Estate Management The Dcit बनाम/ Ltd. Circle-3(1)(1) Vs. (Previously Known As Pioneer Ahmedabad Technopark Ltd.) 81, New York Tower – A Opp. Muktidham Derasar Sg Highway Thaltej Cross Road Ahmedabad -380 054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcm 0617 P .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Dhiren Shah & Shri Nupur Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Subhas Bain Cit-Dr

4. The societies finally sold the land to related person of assessee. 5. The societies paid compensation almost 85% of sales consideration to assessee. 6. Assessee after the receipt of compensation transferred the amount to related party. 9.8. As per the finding of the learned CIT (A), the entire flow of transaction was made as represented above to escape from

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

4) and 131 of the Act from key persons such\nas Shri Ashish Panalal Shah, Shri Shaileshbhai Jayantilal Shah, and Shri\nNarendrabhai Shivbhai Parmar which revealed that the demat accounts\nused for share trading were not genuinely owned or operated by these\nindividuals, but were instead controlled by Ashish Panalal Shah, who\nadmitted to manipulating share prices and providing bogus

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

4) and 131 of the Act from key persons such\nas Shri Ashish Panalal Shah, Shri Shaileshbhai Jayantilal Shah, and Shri\nNarendrabhai Shivbhai Parmar which revealed that the demat accounts\nused for share trading were not genuinely owned or operated by these\nindividuals, but were instead controlled by Ashish Panalal Shah, who\nadmitted to manipulating share prices and providing bogus

THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. BAJAJ HERBALS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is, thus, allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

Capital Gain and Business Profit on sale of land ignoring the fact that the plot has been revalued at Rs. 6,60,66,000/- on form 3CD of audit report.” Ground No. 1:- 2. The assessee a manufacturer and exporter of cosmetic item filed its return of income on 29.09.2012 declaring income at Rs. NIL which was processed 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

SHRI DHANESH P.SONI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

4 to purchase, the assessee has obtained possession which was handed over to M/s.Rajeshwar Corporation on 31.7.2008, when the agreement to sell was executed. On the other hand, the case of the assessee is that possession was handed over in the subsequent assessment year. Capital gain was arisen in the Asstt.Year 2010-11 and the assessee has duly offered

SHRI DEVENDRASINGH A. JADEJA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

172, Part No. 16 in Dist. Ahmedabad-5, Narol on 12th May, 2007. The sale consideration of the land was fixed at Rs.10 Lakhs. As per the agreement to sale deed, the assessee paid Rs.2Lakhs as earnest money in consideration of which the assessee claims to have received possession of the property from the proposed seller