SUMIT H BHAGCHANDANI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

2 (Bombay)/[2016] 242 Taxman 189 (Bombay)/[2016] 387 ITR 421 (Bombay)/[2016] 290 CTR 496 (Bombay)[18-08-2016] has held that where assessee had filed return of income and entire amount which was subjected to capital gain tax had not been utilized for purpose of construction of new house, nor were unutilized amounts deposited in notified Bank Accounts

SHRI ALPESH NAVINBHAI BAROT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

2 of 6 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16 on 31.03.2017 declaring income of Rs.25,37,500/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. In the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had sold a non-agricultural land

M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

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

290 and in the case of DOT vs Zydus Wellness Centre 76 Taxman 328, Ahmedabad. In the case of Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. Hon’ble High Court of Mumbai has followed Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smifs Securities Ltd. In the present case under consideration it is an accepted proposition that goodwill is an intangible asset

JT. CTI (OSD), CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

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

290 and in the case of DOT vs Zydus Wellness Centre 76 Taxman 328, Ahmedabad. In the case of Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. Hon’ble High Court of Mumbai has followed Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smifs Securities Ltd. In the present case under consideration it is an accepted proposition that goodwill is an intangible asset

NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

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

290 and in the case of DOT vs Zydus Wellness Centre 76 Taxman 328, Ahmedabad. In the case of Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. Hon’ble High Court of Mumbai has followed Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smifs Securities Ltd. In the present case under consideration it is an accepted proposition that goodwill is an intangible asset

THE DCIT, CIR-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

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

290 and in the case of DOT vs Zydus Wellness Centre 76 Taxman 328, Ahmedabad. In the case of Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. Hon’ble High Court of Mumbai has followed Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smifs Securities Ltd. In the present case under consideration it is an accepted proposition that goodwill is an intangible asset

DILIPKUMAR VITTHALDAS DESAI,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(1)(1), VADODARA

Bench: The Tribunal Has Caused The Delay Of 87 Days In Filing The Appeal. The Assessee Enclosed The United States Passport Copy Of His Brother, Who Visited India In December 2023. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Stated In The Notarized Affidavit Thereby We Hereby Condone The Delay Of 87 Days In Filing The Above Appeals & Adjudicate The Cases On Merits.

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13 respectively. I.T.A Nos. 83 & 84/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 2 Dilipkumar Vitthaldas Desai vs. ITO 2. The registry has noted that there is a delay of 87 days in filing these appeals by the assessee. The assessee explained by way of Notarized Affidavit

DILIPKUMAR VITTHALDAS DESAI,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), VADODARA

Bench: The Tribunal Has Caused The Delay Of 87 Days In Filing The Appeal. The Assessee Enclosed The United States Passport Copy Of His Brother, Who Visited India In December 2023. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Stated In The Notarized Affidavit Thereby We Hereby Condone The Delay Of 87 Days In Filing The Above Appeals & Adjudicate The Cases On Merits.

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13 respectively. I.T.A Nos. 83 & 84/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 2 Dilipkumar Vitthaldas Desai vs. ITO 2. The registry has noted that there is a delay of 87 days in filing these appeals by the assessee. The assessee explained by way of Notarized Affidavit

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

290. 6. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - VI erred in law and on facts in passing appeal order wrongly relying on the decision of honorable Supreme Court in the case of SumtiDaya vs. CIT (1995) 80 TAXMANN 89 (SC) as the facts in that case was quite different from the case of appellant. 7. The Learned Commissioner

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

290. 6. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - VI erred in law and on facts in passing appeal order wrongly relying on the decision of honorable Supreme Court in the case of SumtiDaya vs. CIT (1995) 80 TAXMANN 89 (SC) as the facts in that case was quite different from the case of appellant. 7. The Learned Commissioner

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

290. 6. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - VI erred in law and on facts in passing appeal order wrongly relying on the decision of honorable Supreme Court in the case of SumtiDaya vs. CIT (1995) 80 TAXMANN 89 (SC) as the facts in that case was quite different from the case of appellant. 7. The Learned Commissioner

REKHABEN INDRAVADAN CHOKSHI,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-5(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Department’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

290/-. The case was selected for scrutiny with the reason ‘Abnormal increase in cash deposits during demonetization period as compared to pre-demonetization period”. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer observed that during the demonetization period from 8th November 2016 to 30th December 2016, the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs.28,67,50,000/- (in Specified

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. REKHA INDRAVADAN CHOKSHI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Department’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

290/-. The case was selected for scrutiny with the reason ‘Abnormal increase in cash deposits during demonetization period as compared to pre-demonetization period”. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer observed that during the demonetization period from 8th November 2016 to 30th December 2016, the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs.28,67,50,000/- (in Specified

JAYKISHAN SONI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. On the fact and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the order passed by ld. AO which

M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-\n13 & 2013-14 filed by the assessee are partly allowed, while the appeal of the assessee\nfor AY 2014-15 is allowed

290 and in the case of DOT vs Zydus Wellness Centre 76 Taxman 328,\nAhmedabad. In the case of Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai\nhas followed Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smifs Securities Ltd. In the\npresent case under consideration it is an accepted proposition that goodwill is an\nintangible asset

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VOLGA INTERNATIONAL LTD.,, SARANGPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT (A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent. 3. At the outset we note

RAJESH SHANABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2012-13

section 147 of the Act 1961. In response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the assessee filed return of income on 10-04-2019 after declaring total income at Rs. 8,83,290/-. The assessee has filed the return of income along with computation of long term capital gain and claimed exemption

HASMUKHBHAI HANSRAJ PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(7), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2015-16 Hasmukhbhai Hansraj Patel Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(3)(7) C-202, Suvas Residency Ahmedabad. Opp: Maghmalhar Society Nikol Road Ahmedabad 382350. Pan : Bpdpp 1078 Q

2,65,070/- and why such investment should not be treated as unexplained investment. These details as per Ld. CIT(Appeals) were relevant with regard to addition made by AO in Assessment Order because it is the claim of the Appellant that once the above referred property was sold, he had withdrawn the cash and partial amount was deposited

SAROJBEN RAJKUMAR BANSAL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE RAJKUMAR KAKARAM BANSAL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.306/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sarojben Rajkumar Bansal The Dy.Cit बनाम/ Legal Heir Of Circle-1 V/S. Late Shri Rajkumar Kakaram Bhavnagar – 364 001 Bansal Plot No.1497/B, Opp. Theosophical Lodge Bhavnagar, Gujarat 364 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aanpb 1618 G अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prithviraj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deciding the appeal without entering into merits of the case in violation of Section 250(6) of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of id. AO of reopening of assessment