SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain amounting to Rs. 1,48,00,000/- 13. The brief facts relating to this ground of appeal are that the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,48,00,000/- on “protective basis” in the hands of assessee in respect of undisclosed consideration on sale of land based on Pages 9-22 of Annexure BS-24 found during

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain amounting to Rs. 1,48,00,000/- 13. The brief facts relating to this ground of appeal are that the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,48,00,000/- on “protective basis” in the hands of assessee in respect of undisclosed consideration on sale of land based on Pages 9-22 of Annexure BS-24 found during

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain amounting to Rs. 1,48,00,000/- 13. The brief facts relating to this ground of appeal are that the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,48,00,000/- on “protective basis” in the hands of assessee in respect of undisclosed consideration on sale of land based on Pages 9-22 of Annexure BS-24 found during

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain amounting to Rs. 1,48,00,000/- 13. The brief facts relating to this ground of appeal are that the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,48,00,000/- on “protective basis” in the hands of assessee in respect of undisclosed consideration on sale of land based on Pages 9-22 of Annexure BS-24 found during

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain amounting to Rs. 1,48,00,000/- 13. The brief facts relating to this ground of appeal are that the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,48,00,000/- on “protective basis” in the hands of assessee in respect of undisclosed consideration on sale of land based on Pages 9-22 of Annexure BS-24 found during

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain amounting to Rs. 1,48,00,000/- 13. The brief facts relating to this ground of appeal are that the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,48,00,000/- on “protective basis” in the hands of assessee in respect of undisclosed consideration on sale of land based on Pages 9-22 of Annexure BS-24 found during

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain amounting to Rs. 1,48,00,000/- 13. The brief facts relating to this ground of appeal are that the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,48,00,000/- on “protective basis” in the hands of assessee in respect of undisclosed consideration on sale of land based on Pages 9-22 of Annexure BS-24 found during

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain amounting to Rs. 1,48,00,000/- 13. The brief facts relating to this ground of appeal are that the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,48,00,000/- on “protective basis” in the hands of assessee in respect of undisclosed consideration on sale of land based on Pages 9-22 of Annexure BS-24 found during

SHRI NAVINCHANDRA N. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

178/-. However, it is noticed from the computation of income that the assessee has not calculated and disallowance under section 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D. 4. Enquiries made by the AO as sequel to information collected/received: As per para no. 2 5. Findings of the AO: (1) The assessee had purchased agriculture land block bearing consolidated

ACIT CC 2(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. AISHA DHIRAJ GOGIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result: 50. To summarize the final outcome:

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha["ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" एवं "ी नरे" साद िस!ा, लेखा सद" के सम#।]

Capital Gains under section 10(38) of the Act, treating the underlying shares as "penny stocks"; and (iv) Addition on account of alleged on-money received on the sale of property in the Earth Erita project. These additions were made based on material allegedly found during the search action, including digital data like WhatsApp chats retrieved from third-party mobile

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. DOLPHIN LABORATORIES LTD.,( NOW KNOWN AS INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.7,44,598/- out of Misc. expenses, on the basis of unsubstantiated claim of assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. DOLPHIN LABORATORIES LTD.,( NOW KNOWN AS INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.7,44,598/- out of Misc. expenses, on the basis of unsubstantiated claim of assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

MAYUR DYECHEM INTERMEDIATES LLP,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-3(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground No. 5 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 178(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. During the impugned year, the assessee earned from sale/transfer of REC/ESCs, a sum of Rs. 17,77,26000/-. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee amended its claim related to income earned from the sale/transfer of RECs/ESCs as “capital receipt” and recomputed the tax by claiming exemption of tax on said income

SHRI MANAV VIKAS FOUNDATION,CHAMARAJ, TL. VADHAVAN vs. ITO, WARD-2(EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the asessee is allowed

Capital expenditure amounting to Rs.3,02,379 since in the absence of being assessed u/s 11 the appellant would need to be assessed as an AOP and expenses for the objects of the Trust cannot be disallowed. Furthermore, the appellant also requested to keep the present appeal proceedings in abeyance till the disposal of condonation application filed

SHRI SANJAYBHAI RAMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(5),, BHAVNAGAR

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 452/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015

capital gain. After taking cognizance of assessee’s reply and details, the AO observed that the assessee purchased 75,000 shares of the said company for consideration of Rs.13,50,000/- about which no specific or vital information was available in the public domain and thus it was pre-arranged to provide accommodation entry. The AO further observed that

SHRI JIGNESH RAMJIBHAI PATEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2),, BHAVNAGAR

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 452/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015

capital gain. After taking cognizance of assessee’s reply and details, the AO observed that the assessee purchased 75,000 shares of the said company for consideration of Rs.13,50,000/- about which no specific or vital information was available in the public domain and thus it was pre-arranged to provide accommodation entry. The AO further observed that

SMT. SHITAL SANJAYBHAI PATEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(5),, BHAVNAGAR

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 452/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015

capital gain. After taking cognizance of assessee’s reply and details, the AO observed that the assessee purchased 75,000 shares of the said company for consideration of Rs.13,50,000/- about which no specific or vital information was available in the public domain and thus it was pre-arranged to provide accommodation entry. The AO further observed that

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