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

234B & C of the Act. 6. That the Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) and the learned AO erred in fact and in law in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.” Shri Navinchandra N Patel Vs. ACIT Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 3– 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged

DARPAN KANUBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 123/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2018-19 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Darpan Kanubhai Shah The Income-Tax Officer, C/O. Darpan Travels, Vs. Ward-3(1)(4), Near Ramji Mandir, Vadodara Madanzampa Road, Vadodara-390001 Pan : Agips 3405 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Samir Parikh, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 22.11.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under :- “(1) The Learned Cit(Appeal) Is Not Correct In Holding That The Assessee Has Not Filed Return Of Income U/S 148. Consequently The Learned Cit (Appeal) Is Not Correct That The Appeal Is Not Liable To Be Admitted. (Ii) Alternatively Appeal Is Allowed By Set Aside The Order & Matter Referred Back To The Desk Of Hon. Cit For Reconsideration. Darpan Kanubhai Shah Vs. Ito Ay : 2018-19 2

Capital Gain earned by the assessee was computed by the Assessing Officer at Rs.52,41,028/- and, subjected to tax, adding it to the income of the assessee. 4. The matter was carried in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the assessee’s appeal as infructuous and non-maintainable, noting that the assessee had failed to fulfil

HAZIRA PORT PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CICLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the above terms

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234B and 234C of the Act. 12. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Appellant did not furnish any inaccurate particulars of income Each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice

UNIMED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2016-17 Unimed Technologies Limited Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Survey No.22 & 22, Vs. Vadodara. Baska, Ujeti Halol Panchmahal Pan : Aaace 4022 B Asstt.Year : 2016-17 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Unimed Technologies Limited Vadodara. Vs. Survey No.22 & 22, Baska, Ujeti Halol Panchmahal Pan : Aaace 4022 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Assessee By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

234B of the Act after considering the corrected TDS credit. The CIT(A) also directed verification and appropriate rectification in respect of the short grant of TDS and interest charged thereon. However, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of consultancy fees amounting to Rs.2,18,58,050/-, incurred by the assessee in respect of regulatory and technical consultancy services

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" in the return of income. Other Grounds: 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law confirming the action of the learned AO in denying the deduction claimed u/s 54F of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,18,97,803. 8. The learned AO erred in fact and in law in levying interest u/s 234B

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

234B was charged. 2.9 Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee reiterated that while he accepted the working of capital gain at Rs. 62,60,142/-, he was entitled to deduction under section 54 since the investment in residential property, though made in the name of his wife

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, RACE COURSE vs. UNIMED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, HALOL

Accordingly dismissed.\n18.9 Based on the findings and conclusions set out hereinabove, the\nappeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by\nthe assessee is partly allowed

234B of the Act\nafter considering the corrected TDS credit. The CIT(A) also directed\nverification and appropriate rectification in respect of the short grant of TDS\nand interest charged thereon.\nHowever, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of consultancy fees\namounting to Rs.2,18,58,050/-, incurred by the assessee in respect of\nregulatory and technical consultancy services

M/S. BODAL CHEMICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital assets. Thus, prior to the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021 the same has to be allowed by the Revenue. Thus, the CIT(A) has rightly allowed the same and there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Thus, Ground No. 1 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 8. Ground No. 2: Whether

UMESH SUMANLAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2012-13

234B, 234C and 234D are unjustified.” 3. The assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 on 21.03.2014 declaring total income at Rs.43,560/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee sold an immovable property for Rs.45,00,000/- during

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

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 Nigam

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

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

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

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

AIA ENGINEERING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas, the\nappeal of the assessee stands allowed

capital expenditure or personal expenses of the asses\nsee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or\nprofession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head \"Profits\nand gains of business or profession\".\nExplanation 1.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure\nincurred by an assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. AIA ENGINEERING LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas, the\nappeal of the assessee stands allowed

capital expenditure or personal expenses of the asses\nsee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or\nprofession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head \"Profits\nand gains of business or profession\".\nExplanation 1.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure\nincurred by an assessee

VINODBHAI UGARDAS PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2) PRESENT JURISDICTION THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11 Vinodbhai Ugardas Patel Dy.Cit, Cir.2(1)(1) Nirma House Vs Ahmedabad. B/H. Petrol Pump Ashram Road Ahmedabad 38009. Pan : Aavpp 9679 F. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate Assessee By Revenue By : Ms.Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Guptathis Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(A), Delhi Dated 26.07.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Grounds Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Read As Under:

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The grounds raised in the appeal of the assessee read as under: “1. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in points of law and facts

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)

3 – the AO has not taken the judgement best of his knowledge and documents available but has simply added the Sales consideration under the head long-term capital 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

PUNITA KALPESH PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

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

3. Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC) erred in law and on facts confirming disallowance by AO without taking into consideration provisions of Section 115BBDA and of Section 10(38) of the Act as applicable to relevant assessment. 4. Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC) erred in law and on facts confirming finding of AO based on misunderstanding as to date of purchase & sale

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