SANJAYKUMAR RAMESHBHAI MALI,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(5), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Capital Gain and final assessment is as income from other sources is illegal and bad in Law and Void. III On Interest u/s. 234 1. The CITA) has erred both in Law and in Fact in upholding charging of Interest us 234A of Rs. 36,366 and u/s 234B of Rs. 18,874/- which is not chargeable both on point

SH. RAJESH NARENDRABHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(2), VADODARA, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13 Shri Rajesh Narendrabhai Patel Ito, Ward-1(2)(2) Baroda Bolt & Engineering Works Vadodara. Opp: Lalbaug Atitigruh Pratapnagar Vadodara Pan : Acqpp 6089 C (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : None : 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 Gain 62,60,142/- Income from Other Sources 91,168/- Gross Total Income 79,05,310/- Less: Deduction u/s 80C 30,000/- Total Income Assessed 78,75,310/- 2.8 Penalty proceedings under sections 271F and 271(1)(c) were separately initiated, and interest under sections 234A

PRADIPSINH GHANSHYAMSINH VAGHELA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

gain, which is exempt being profit derived from rural agriculture land. 7. AO is aware that the rural agriculture land (Survey no. 985), which was purchased during the year was sold by the assessee. The said fact is also very much clear from the Para no. 5.1, 5.2 and 5.4 of the AO, in-spite of the same AO failed

SANJAY JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2014-2015 Sanjay Jayantilal Shah Ito, Ward-2(1)(1) 202/A, Shivalik 10 Vs. Vejalpur Opp: Sbi Zonal Office Ahmedabad. Ambawadi, Ahmedabad 380 015 Pan : Aktps 8891 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, Ars. : Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"], For The Assessment Year 2014–15, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 31.03.2022 Passed U/S 147 Read With Section 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Assessing Officer Or Ao"].

Capital Gain was not genuine. 2.5 Consequently, the Assessing Officer treated the amount of Rs.1,05,04,800/- being the sale consideration of shares as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act and further estimated cash commission at the rate of 5% of such accommodation entry, amounting to Rs. 5,25,240/-, as unexplained expenditure

BHAVNA SHETALKUMAR PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

capital gain\nof Rs.81,85,226 arising from sale of shares of Jackson Investments Ltd. as\nbogus, relying extensively on general findings of the Investigation Wing\nregarding penny stock accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer\nconcluded that the assessee had routed unaccounted income through\noperators and made an addition of Rs.81,85,226 under section 68.\n9.\nThe assessee preferred

ARVIND SHASHANK HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

capital gain from Aricent Infra shares.\n7. Considering these facts on record, it cannot be established that the Assessing\nOfficer has really gone through the return of income filed by the assessee to come to\nthe conclusion that there has been an escapement of income other than the\ninformation provided by the Department. The reasons recorded are found

ADITI THAPAR ,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for de- novo adjudication in the interest of justice

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234A, 234B, 234C are unjustified. 8. Initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from salary, rent, long-term capital gains and other sources. The assessee filed her return of income for the Assessment Year 2014-15 declaring total income

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRECLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” Ground No.1:- This ground relates to disallowance under Section 14A 4. of the Act. ITA Nos.318&414/Ahd/2020 Gujarat Urja Vikas

ATUL GOVINDJI SHROFF,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

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

section 54F and consequently disallowing the claim of deduction u/s. 54F despite the fact that the Appellant was a joint owner of the alleged residential house. 8. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the ld. AO in disallowing the claim of deduction u/s. 54F based

KALPANABEN VADILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above\nterms

Capital Gain earned during the\nyear under consideration, however without considering various\nsubmissions and material available on record, addition made\nmealy on mechanical manner on the basis of some general\nmodus operandi, without any evidence against the appellant is\nbad in law and therefore the addition made u/s 68 r.w.s.\n115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Rs.1

MALAY SHAILESHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

gain from share trading as unexplained money and disallowing a short-term capital loss. The AO flagged the shares as 'penny stock' and the transactions as routed through accommodation entries.", "held": "The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal without adjudicating on merits, citing non-compliance with notices. The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order did not reflect proper

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

234A, 234B, 234C and 234C of the Act which are consequential in nature, therefore the same does not require any specific adjudication. 7.1 In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No. 166/Ahd/2022 is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 223/Ahd/2022 for A.Y. 2017-18 8. The Grounds of Appeal raised

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

234A, 234B, 234C and 234C of the Act which are consequential in nature, therefore the same does not require any specific adjudication. 7.1 In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No. 166/Ahd/2022 is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 223/Ahd/2022 for A.Y. 2017-18 8. The Grounds of Appeal raised

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

234A, 234B, 234C and 234C of the Act which are consequential in nature, therefore the same does not require any specific adjudication. 7.1 In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No. 166/Ahd/2022 is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 223/Ahd/2022 for A.Y. 2017-18 8. The Grounds of Appeal raised

THE JT.CIT, (OSD)CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD., VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

234A, 234B, 234C and 234C of the Act which are consequential in nature, therefore the same does not require any specific adjudication. 7.1 In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No. 166/Ahd/2022 is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 223/Ahd/2022 for A.Y. 2017-18 8. The Grounds of Appeal raised

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PALANPUR, PALANPUR vs. NIKESHKUMAR SHANTILAL MEHTA, MUMBAI

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

Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Act was directed\nto be recomputed, and the penalty proceedings were deemed infructuous.\n4.\nAggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before\nus with following grounds of appeal:\n(a) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of\nRs.1

YOGESH HARGOVINDBHAI JOSHI L/H OF BHAVNABEN Y. JOSHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar, Vice- & Ms.Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2012-13 Yogesh Hargovindbhai Joshi Vs. The Ito, Ward-6(1)(1) L/H. Of Bhavnaben Y. Joshi Ahmedabad. 8, Manav Pursusharth Society Opp: Hirabhai Tower Uttamnagar, Maninagar Pan : Adupj 2208 C (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Parin Shah, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

Capital Gain on sale of shares of Karma Ispar as undisclosed income and thereby denying the exemption claimed u/s 10(38) of the Act. The Assessing Officer may be directed to delete the same. 3. The Assessing officer has erred on facts and in law charging interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C when no such interest is leviable. The appellant denies

HITENDRA DILIPSINH JADEJA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2017-18 Hitendra Dilipsinh Jadeja The Ito 4, Sanjay Park Society Vs Ward-3(2)(2) Nr.Jogni Mata Temple Ahmedabad Sanand Ahmedabad – 382 110 Gujarat Pan: Agfpj1666A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms.Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra Kamblethis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19/10/2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” In Short] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

Section 250(6) of the Act. 3. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts by confirming addition of Rs.9,72,300/- as unexplained agriculture income u/s 68 of the Act without taking into account the arguments of the appellant. Thus, Hon'ble CIT(A) has not taken into account the details submitted

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 4. Ground No.1:- This ground relates to disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. 5. The Ld. A.O. disallowed