MAYANK RASIKLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CPC , BENGLURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 151/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2017-2018 Mayank Rasiklal Patel, The D.C.I.T., 3 Jagjivan Park Socieity, Vs. Cpc, Auda Garden, Bengaluru. Near Ishwer Bhuvan, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-382445. Pan: Afxpp7715H

capital gain, other sources and profit share from the said firm. The assessee in the year under consideration declared income of Rs. 39,85,850/- only. While processing the return of income under section 143(1), the CPC Bengaluru made an addition of Rs. 15,85,364/- on account of difference in interest income as per form 26AS

BLUE RIVER REALTY PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are dismissed

246A. in absence of the power of authority to make such adjustment under section 200A of the Act, any calculation of the fee would not partake the character of the intimation under said provision and it could be argued that such an order would not be open to 'any rectification or appeal. Upon introduction of the recasted clause (c), this

GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.572/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Gujarat State Electricity The Pr.Cit-1 Corporation Ltd. बनाम/ Vadodara – 390 015 Sardar Patel Vidhyut Bhavan V/S. Race Course Circle Vadodara – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacg 6864 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Jimi Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri A.P. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

capital grants, prior period items, liquidated damages, and others. Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT-1 Asst. Year : 2015-16 3 2.4. Subsequently, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax–1, Vadodara, issued a notice under section 263 of the Act on 13.09.2019, proposing to revise the assessment on the ground that the AO failed to examine the allowability

BABUBHAI RAMANBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1) PRESENT JURISDICTION THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

gains / losses, and Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee had traded in a script, namely, Prerna Infrabuild Limited, which was a bogus company and did not exist at its address. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee had incurred bogus short-term capital losses amount amounting to Rs.3,25,511/- which were required

BABUBHAI RAMANBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE,DELHI PRESENT JURISDICTION THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

gains / losses, and Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee had traded in a script, namely, Prerna Infrabuild Limited, which was a bogus company and did not exist at its address. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee had incurred bogus short-term capital losses amount amounting to Rs.3,25,511/- which were required

SHRI NAGIN A VAGHELA,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

capital gains was offered to tax in the return or whether it was properly accounted for. More crucially, since A.Y. 2011-12 was an unabated year for the purposes of section 153A proceedings, the AO could not have made any additions unless incriminating documents were found during the search. The assessment record does not mention any such incriminating material that

SHRI NAGIN A VAGHELA,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

capital gains was offered to tax in the return or whether it was properly accounted for. More crucially, since A.Y. 2011-12 was an unabated year for the purposes of section 153A proceedings, the AO could not have made any additions unless incriminating documents were found during the search. The assessment record does not mention any such incriminating material that