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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain on sale of land amounting to Rs. 1,89,43,840/-, we have, in the preceding paragraphs while discussing the appeal of assessee’s brother, Shri Rohit C. Thakore have on identical set of facts confirmed the levy of penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty under Section 271AAA is hereby confirmed in the hands

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain on sale of land amounting to Rs. 1,89,43,840/-, we have, in the preceding paragraphs while discussing the appeal of assessee’s brother, Shri Rohit C. Thakore have on identical set of facts confirmed the levy of penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty under Section 271AAA is hereby confirmed in the hands

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain on sale of land amounting to Rs. 1,89,43,840/-, we have, in the preceding paragraphs while discussing the appeal of assessee’s brother, Shri Rohit C. Thakore have on identical set of facts confirmed the levy of penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty under Section 271AAA is hereby confirmed in the hands

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain on sale of land amounting to Rs. 1,89,43,840/-, we have, in the preceding paragraphs while discussing the appeal of assessee’s brother, Shri Rohit C. Thakore have on identical set of facts confirmed the levy of penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty under Section 271AAA is hereby confirmed in the hands

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain on sale of land amounting to Rs. 1,89,43,840/-, we have, in the preceding paragraphs while discussing the appeal of assessee’s brother, Shri Rohit C. Thakore have on identical set of facts confirmed the levy of penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty under Section 271AAA is hereby confirmed in the hands

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain on sale of land amounting to Rs. 1,89,43,840/-, we have, in the preceding paragraphs while discussing the appeal of assessee’s brother, Shri Rohit C. Thakore have on identical set of facts confirmed the levy of penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty under Section 271AAA is hereby confirmed in the hands

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain on sale of land amounting to Rs. 1,89,43,840/-, we have, in the preceding paragraphs while discussing the appeal of assessee’s brother, Shri Rohit C. Thakore have on identical set of facts confirmed the levy of penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty under Section 271AAA is hereby confirmed in the hands

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

23-08-2018, the AO proposed to impose ITA No.251/Ahd/2022 with 9 others A.Y. 2009-10 4 penalty under section 271(1)(1)(c) of the Act vide show cause notice dated 27-01- 2020. 3.2 The assessee in response submitted that the amount of Rs. 65 lacs was offered to tax by him suo-moto during the course

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

23-08-2018, the AO proposed to impose ITA No.251/Ahd/2022 with 9 others A.Y. 2009-10 4 penalty under section 271(1)(1)(c) of the Act vide show cause notice dated 27-01- 2020. 3.2 The assessee in response submitted that the amount of Rs. 65 lacs was offered to tax by him suo-moto during the course

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

23-08-2018, the AO proposed to impose ITA No.251/Ahd/2022 with 9 others A.Y. 2009-10 4 penalty under section 271(1)(1)(c) of the Act vide show cause notice dated 27-01- 2020. 3.2 The assessee in response submitted that the amount of Rs. 65 lacs was offered to tax by him suo-moto during the course

SANDEEP MOHANRAJ SINGHI,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE4(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

capital gain on sale of 80,00,000 shares donated to the assessee trust, was avoided by the trustee by making this arrangement, was not denied. In view of this fact, the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly invoked the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act to deny the claim of exemption under Section

ACIT (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. DR K R SHROFF FOUNDATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\n\n29

capital gain on sale of 80,00,000 shares donated to\nthe assessee trust, was avoided by the trustee by making this\narrangement, was not denied. In view of this fact, the Ld. CIT(A) had\nrightly invoked the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act to deny the\nclaim of exemption under Section

MOHIT VIJAYKUMAR GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, Ground No

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1091/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2021-22 Mohit Vijaykumar Gupta The Dcit बनाम/ B-1001, Juhu Trishul, Circle-2(1)(1) V/S. Gulmohar Cross Road No.6 Ahmedabad – 380 015 Jvpd Vile Parle West Mumbai – 400 049 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Adfpg 7162 D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri J. C. Desai, Ca Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 14/12/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-2022. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Mohit Vijaykumar Gupta Vs. Dcit Asst. Year : 2021-22

23(1)(c) of the Act by your Appellant. (b) Your appellant prays that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. A O may be directed to delete the addition made to the total income. 2. (a) The Ld. CIT (Appeal)/The National Faceless Appeal Centre('NFAC') has erred in confirming addition

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD vs. AIA ENGINEERING LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 397/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Aia Engineering Limited, Dcit Vs. 115, Gvmm Estate, Odhav Road, Circle-1(1)(1), Odhav, Ahmedabad-382415 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabca 2777 J आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 532/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Aia Engineering Limited, Acit, Vs. 115, Gvmm Estate, Odhav Road, Circle-1(1)(1), Odhav, Ahmedabad-382415 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabca 2777 J अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr Dr & Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

c), (iv) Section 55(2)(a)(ii) and (v) Section 49(1)(iii)(e) relied upon by the Assessing Officer for disallowing the claim of depreciation related to assets transferred in AIA Engineering Ltd - Cross Appeals AY : 2016-17 the scheme of amalgamation and goodwill being an intangible asset not transferred from the amalgamating company to the amalgamated company

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 1 1, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. BHARAT LAKHAJI NANDWANA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR Appellant by : Respondent by: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. & Ms. Ukti Shah, ARs Date of Hearing 09.03.2026 12.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been filed by the Department against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short

SHRI JIGNESH JAYSUKHLAL GHIYA,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT CIRLCE-4(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

C. Aryama Sundaram Vs. CIT reported in (2018) 97 taxmann.com 74 wherein on an identical facts held as follows: 20. What has to be adjusted and/or set off against the capital gain is, the cost of the residential house that is purchased or constructed. Section 54(1) I.T.A No. 324/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 10 Shri Jignesh Jaysukhlal Ghiya

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

23,63,830/- of the Act (as per Para No. 8.5) Assessed Business Income Rs.17,22,48,14,269/- C. Capital Gain – [as per Return of income] Rs. 11,37,32,825/- D. Income from other sources [as per Return of income] Rs. 80,07,21,966/- Assessed Income Rs.18,14,03,03,585/- Brought forward losses

JCIT(OSD), CIR-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE (INDIA) LTD, HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

23,24,536/-, held by treasury segment back to Sterling through the arrangement approved by hon’ble High Court and the shareholders of the appellant received 2,68,01,557 shares worth of Rs. 61,91,15,966/- of Sterling in return. I agree with the stand taken by the A.O and with due regards and respect to the order