BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

40 results for “capital gains”+ Section 245clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai600Delhi468Bangalore256Chennai158Karnataka113Kolkata106Jaipur48Ahmedabad40Indore32Chandigarh30Hyderabad29Nagpur26Cuttack24Lucknow22Guwahati19Calcutta19Raipur18Rajkot17Surat15SC10Visakhapatnam7Pune7Ranchi5Jodhpur5Varanasi5Telangana4Rajasthan3Amritsar2Jabalpur2Cochin2K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Andhra Pradesh1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)41Addition to Income36Section 271(1)(c)32Disallowance23Penalty13Section 6812Business Income12Depreciation11Section 115J10

SHRI KARAN RAJENDRAKUMAR ARYA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 31/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 31/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Shri Karan Rajendrakumar Arya, The Principal Commissioner Of 802, Saffron, Panchvati, Vs. Income Tax-1, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 54

section, that is to say,— 7.2 The above provision requires that the amount of capital gain should be invested in a house either by way of purchase or construction of the house. The word purchase has been interpreted in the case of CIT v. Mrs. Shakuntala Devi [2016] 389 ITR 366/ 75 taxmann.com 222 by the Hon’ble Karnataka High

ANILKUMAR DWARKAPRASAD MODANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)(PREVIOUSLY DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)), VADODARA

Showing 1–20 of 40 · Page 1 of 2

Deduction10
Section 2639
Section 1328

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

ITA 1572/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1572/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Anilkumar Dwarkaprasad Modani The Dy.Cit बनाम/ A-17, Videocon Housing Colony Circle-2(1)(1) V/S. Chavaj, Bharuch 392 002 Vadodara (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Acnpm 0273 C अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hemant Suthar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26/12/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, In Which The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao)”] Under Section 50C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] Was Confirmed Vide Assessment Order Dated 28/03/2016. Facts Of The Case: 2. The Assessee, An Individual Earning Income From Salaries, Trading In Shares & Securities, Capital Gains & Other Sources, Filed His Return Of Anilkumar Dwarkaprasad Modani Vs. The Dcit Asst. Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

capital gain determined by substitution of stamp duty value in place of actual sale consideration. The impugned addition of Rs.54,99,196/- being bad in law and in facts is prayed to be deleted. 4. Your appellant craves liberty to add, alter, amend substitute or withdraw any of the ground(s) of appeal hereinabove contained. Anilkumar Dwarkaprasad Modani

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

ITA 623/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

245/- made on account of software expenditure holding it as allowable expenditure under section 37(1), without appreciating the findings of the AO that the expenditure gave enduring benefit to the assessee? 2. Whether, on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1

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

ITA 632/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: \nShri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: \nShri Sher Singh, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

section 37(1) was also rejected by the CIT(A), following the Revenue's\nstand that such cess was not allowable as deduction from business income\nunder the prevailing interpretation of the law.\n5.\nAggrieved by the relief granted, the Revenue has filed appeal in ITA\nNo. 632/Ahd/2024 raising the following grounds:\n1. Whether, on facts and in the circumstances

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1285/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1285 & 1286/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & Ita No.1396 & 1397/Ahd/2018 Asstt.Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent House Ahmedabad. Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1327 & 1328/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1414 & 1415/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. Torrent House Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Choksi, With Shri Biren Shah, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Mohd. Usman, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/11/2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, With Shri Biren Shah, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 35Section 80Section 92C

section (5) of Section 80-IA. In this case, the question that arose for consideration ITA.Nos.1285/Ahd/2017 & 7 others A.Y.2009-10 38 before this Court related to computation of the profits for the purpose of deduction under section 80-E, as it then existed, after setting off the loss incurred by the assessee in the manufacture of alloy steels. Section

SHRI RAHUL DHARMENDRA SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-5, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 75/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 75/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Rahul Dharmendra Shah, The Principal Commissioner 14, Chandra Prakash Society, Vs. Of Income Tax-5, Vibhag-2, Kankariya, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380022. Pan: Cqjps5772C

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263

capital gain claimed by the assessee merely on strength of primary evidences submitted by him. Thus, the AO erred in not conducting the proper and requisite enquiry despite having the report from DDIT and SEBI available on ITD portal which is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The learned Pr. CIT also placed reliance on the judgment

SHRI DHARMENDRA CHAMPAKLAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-5, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 72/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 75/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Rahul Dharmendra Shah, The Principal Commissioner 14, Chandra Prakash Society, Vs. Of Income Tax-5, Vibhag-2, Kankariya, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380022. Pan: Cqjps5772C

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263

capital gain claimed by the assessee merely on strength of primary evidences submitted by him. Thus, the AO erred in not conducting the proper and requisite enquiry despite having the report from DDIT and SEBI available on ITD portal which is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The learned Pr. CIT also placed reliance on the judgment

VAISHALI BABUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 380/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 380/Ahd/2020 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Vaishali Babubhai Patel, The Principal Commissioner B-201, Vs. Of Income Tax-3, Gala Gardenia Apartments, Ahmedabad. Nr. Safal Parisar, South Bopal, Ahmedabad-380058. Pan: Abdpp0233G

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

gain was correctly computed. A.Y. 2015-16 4 5.2 The contentions raised by the assessee has been considered but not found acceptable. The assessee herself has admitted that the improvement expenses were Incurred before purchase of land and before execution of purchase deed. Further as per condition No.3 of the purchased deed No.892/2004, it has been specifically mentioned that

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1)(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 954/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2025AY 2011-12
For Respondent: \nShri Bandish Soparkar, A.R
Section 115JSection 144Section 50

capital gains\n11.\nBefore us, the counsel for the assessee submitted that this ground is\nrelevant only if ground number 14A and ground related to brokerage charges\nare allowed in favour of the Revenue, in the appeal filed by the Department.\nITA No. 954/Ahd/2016, 1315/Ahd/2016,\n1807/Ahd/2017 & 2033/Ahd/2017\nAmbalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. DCIT\n& DCIT/ACIT vs. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises

THE ASST. CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2033/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR &
Section 115JSection 14ASection 50

capital gains 11. Before us, the counsel for the assessee submitted that this ground is relevant only if ground number 14A and ground related to brokerage charges are allowed in favour of the Revenue, in the appeal filed by the Department. ITA No. 954/Ahd/2016, 1315/Ahd/2016, 1807/Ahd/2017 & 2033/Ahd/2017 Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. DCIT & DCIT/ACIT vs. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. Asst

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1807/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR &
Section 115JSection 14ASection 50

capital gains 11. Before us, the counsel for the assessee submitted that this ground is relevant only if ground number 14A and ground related to brokerage charges are allowed in favour of the Revenue, in the appeal filed by the Department. ITA No. 954/Ahd/2016, 1315/Ahd/2016, 1807/Ahd/2017 & 2033/Ahd/2017 Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. DCIT & DCIT/ACIT vs. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. Asst

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1315/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: \nShri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: \nShri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR &
Section 115JSection 144Section 50

capital gains\n11. Before us, the counsel for the assessee submitted that this ground is\nrelevant only if ground number 14A and ground related to brokerage charges\nare allowed in favour of the Revenue, in the appeal filed by the Department.\nITA No. 954/Ahd/2016, 1315/Ahd/2016,\n1807/Ahd/2017 & 2033/Ahd/2017\nAmbalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. DCIT\n& DCIT/ACIT vs. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises

SHRI HARAPALSINH B CHUDASAMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

ITA 515/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 50CSection 56(2)Section 68

245/- being Long Term Capital Gain u/s.50C of the Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant, the learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating Ground no.3 relating to addition of Rs.3,36,435/- being alleged undervaluation of property purchased by appellant u/s.56(2) of the Act.” 3. The assessee filed return

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD., VADODARA

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

ITA 367/AHD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

gain on the sale of assets. 5.2 On the other hand, the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 6. As regards the interest income shown by the assessee on the loans & advances given to the employees, we note that there was identical issue before this Tribunal in the case of sister concern of the assessee namely

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD., VADODARA

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

ITA 369/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

gain on the sale of assets. 5.2 On the other hand, the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 6. As regards the interest income shown by the assessee on the loans & advances given to the employees, we note that there was identical issue before this Tribunal in the case of sister concern of the assessee namely

MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,VADODARA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

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

ITA 373/AHD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

gain on the sale of assets. 5.2 On the other hand, the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 6. As regards the interest income shown by the assessee on the loans & advances given to the employees, we note that there was identical issue before this Tribunal in the case of sister concern of the assessee namely

MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,VADODARA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

ITA 374/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

gain on the sale of assets. 5.2 On the other hand, the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 6. As regards the interest income shown by the assessee on the loans & advances given to the employees, we note that there was identical issue before this Tribunal in the case of sister concern of the assessee namely

MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,VADODARA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

ITA 372/AHD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

gain on the sale of assets. 5.2 On the other hand, the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 6. As regards the interest income shown by the assessee on the loans & advances given to the employees, we note that there was identical issue before this Tribunal in the case of sister concern of the assessee namely

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD., VADODARA

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

ITA 368/AHD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)

gain on the sale of assets. 5.2 On the other hand, the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 6. As regards the interest income shown by the assessee on the loans & advances given to the employees, we note that there was identical issue before this Tribunal in the case of sister concern of the assessee namely

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI RAMESH GOBARJI THAKOR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 59/AHD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer Vs. Shri Ramesh Gobarji Thakor Ward-3 Sector 11 Gandhinagar. Gandhinagar. Pan : Aespt 3446 H (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/07/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate and Shri Parin Shah, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 250Section 68

capital gain. Similarly for A.Y. 2010-11, the appellant has made available the copy of the assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s.147 of the Act in the case of Smt. Hansaben M. Patel which also reflected the addition of Rs.33,36,89,804/- being the aggregated amounts credited in the bank account with Indian Bank, Navrangpura Branch, Ahmedabad