SHRI VINODBHAI J. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(5), VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. Grievances raised by the parties, which are interconnected and which we will take up together, are as follows:- Grounds of appeal:- ITA No. 464/Ahd/2016 – by Department ITA Nos. 464 & 513/Ahd/2016 ITO vs. Vinodbhai J Patel -cross Assessment Year : 2012-13 Page

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(5), VADODARA vs. SHRI VINODBHAI J. PATEL, VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. Grievances raised by the parties, which are interconnected and which we will take up together, are as follows:- Grounds of appeal:- ITA No. 464/Ahd/2016 – by Department ITA Nos. 464 & 513/Ahd/2016 ITO vs. Vinodbhai J Patel -cross Assessment Year : 2012-13 Page

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(4), BARODA vs. SHRI NATWARBHAI J. PATEL, VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. Grievances raised by the parties, which are interconnected and which we will take up together, are as follows:- ITA Nos. 461 & 512/Ahd/2016 ITO Vs. Natwarbhai J Patel-cross Assessment Year : 2012-13 Page 2 of 11 Grounds of appeal:- ITA No. 461/Ahd/2016 – by Department

SHRI NATWARBHAI J. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4), VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. Grievances raised by the parties, which are interconnected and which we will take up together, are as follows:- ITA Nos. 461 & 512/Ahd/2016 ITO Vs. Natwarbhai J Patel-cross Assessment Year : 2012-13 Page 2 of 11 Grounds of appeal:- ITA No. 461/Ahd/2016 – by Department

SHREE VAIDEHI IMPEX PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Capital Gain at ₹2,86,99,314/- by applying indexation to the WDV and accordingly restricted the addition made by the Assessing Officer from ₹3,59,64,670/- (treated as STCG) to ₹2,86,99,314/- (treated as LTCG). Thus, substantial relief was granted to the assessee by correcting the legal characterization of the gain and partially modifying the computation

VIMARSH PRAKASHBHAI VASAVADA,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2)(2), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes subject to payment of cost

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gains itself was not substantiated and the assessee failed to furnish any proof regarding purchase or construction of the residential house, the Assessing Officer was justified in denying the deduction. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) also dismissed this Ground of Appeal. 7. As regards the ground relating to allowance of foreign tax credit

SHRI GANPATBHAI JETHABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

section 55(2)(ii) of the Act. As such, the expenditure incurred for any addition/ alteration to the capital assets is only eligible for the deduction as the cost of the improvement. Page 4 of 11 ITA nos.170-398/Ahd/2012 and others Asstt. Year 2008-09. 2.3 In view of the above, the AO did not allow the deduction to the assessee

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

SANDIP V PARIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.51/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Sandip V. Parikh, A.C.I.T., 5, Malay Villa Bunglows, Vs. Circle-4(2), Sola Science City Road, Ahmedabad. Sola, Ahmedabad.

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 4. Any other ground which may be urged before or during the hearing of the appeal. 3. The 1st issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the addition made by the AO for Rs. 25,07,732.00 being the amount of capital gain on the sale

HARISH PANNALAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-7(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2010-11 Harish P. Shah Ito, Ward-7(4) Kinjal House Vs Ahmedabad. 2, Karnavati Society Usmanpura Ahmedabad 380 013. Pan : Bpyps 6480 Q

capital gain of Rs.17,05,330/- by way of revised statement of total income. The same was accepted by the AO and assessed the income at Rs.19,71,507/- and levied consequential interest under section 234A

GUJARAT VENTURE CAPITAL FUND 1995,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-10,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 45(1) r.w. s. 48(i) of the Act, wherein the chargeability of capital gains to income tax arises on transfer of capital asset effected in the previous year. 7. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) erred in observing that the payments made by the appellant to 20ML

SHRI HEMANT UMEDBHAI PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. 2. The assessee has not pressed ground no. 4. Now solitary ground remain for adjudication is disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 77,58,664/- made u/s. 36(1)(iii). 3. Facts of the case are that assessee is a partner in multiple Partnership firm and assessee is also doing business

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

RAMANBHAI BHOLIDAS PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

Capital Gains. 4.2. The assessee in his reply dated 16.08.2017 submitted a Sale deed and purchase of immovable property sold during the year along with calculation sheet as Annexure-2 which are at page no. 44 and 45 of the Paper Book. Thus the Ld. Counsel submitted that the Assessing Officer after verification and all the details placed before

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

CHANDRIKABEN HARISH SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,7(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2010-11 Chandrikaben Harish Shah Ito, Ward-7(4) Kinjal House Vs Ahmedabad. 2, Karnavati Society Usmanpura Ahmedabad 380 013. Pan : Bpyps 5968 D

capital gain of Rs.16,32,000/- by way of revised statement of total income. The same was accepted by the AO and assessed the income at Rs.17,28,459/- and levied consequential interest under section 234A