GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMEICALS LTD,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

gains have been included in the other income. Provision for diminution in value of investment has been added back in the computation. Further, the assessee has itself added back Rs.20 lakhs u/s.14A on estimate basis in respect of tax free income earned on such investment. No deduction has been claimed under section 88E for the securities transaction tax paid during

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

gains have been included in the other income. Provision for diminution in value of investment has been added back in the computation. Further, the assessee has itself added back Rs.20 lakhs u/s.14A on estimate basis in respect of tax free income earned on such investment. No deduction has been claimed under section 88E for the securities transaction tax paid during

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LTD.,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

gains have been included in the other income. Provision for diminution in value of investment has been added back in the computation. Further, the assessee has itself added back Rs.20 lakhs u/s.14A on estimate basis in respect of tax free income earned on such investment. No deduction has been claimed under section 88E for the securities transaction tax paid during

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

gains have been included in the other income. Provision for diminution in value of investment has been added back in the computation. Further, the assessee has itself added back Rs.20 lakhs u/s.14A on estimate basis in respect of tax free income earned on such investment. No deduction has been claimed under section 88E for the securities transaction tax paid during

THA ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA vs. M/S. GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

gains have been included in the other income. Provision for diminution in value of investment has been added back in the computation. Further, the assessee has itself added back Rs.20 lakhs u/s.14A on estimate basis in respect of tax free income earned on such investment. No deduction has been claimed under section 88E for the securities transaction tax paid during

SHRI ASHISH TANDON, ,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

capital gain on sale of an asset without any cost of acquisition. The Assessing Officer also noted reliance of the assessee on Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s judgment in the case of Cadell Wvg Mills Co Ltd Vs CIT [(2001) 249 ITR 265 (Bom)], which stands approved by Hon’ble Supreme Court in judgment reported

SHRI RAMESHKUMAR TRIKAMLAL PADHIYAR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, CIRCLE-7,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.322/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Shri Rameshkumar Trikamlal Padhiyar Vs. Jcit, Cir.7 B-604, Prayag Apts., Ahmedabad. Opp: Nirma Vihar School Bodakdev Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Ackpp 6965 H

capital gains where it has not been allowed in computation of income from house property in past. As per the judgment passed in the case of CIT v. Mithlesh Kumari, (1973) 92 ITR (Del. HC) it was held that the actual cost of the asset need not be the only those costs incurred on the date of acquisition. The Delhi

SHRI SUBHASH BECHULAL SONI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-6(4),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 220/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Subhash Bechulal Soni, I.T.O., B/H Shahwadi Bus Stand, Vs. Ward-6(4), Shahwadi, Ahmedabad. Narol, Ahmedabad-382405. Pan: Adzps9498J

249 ITR 125 wherein it was held that the assessee in the quantum proceedings failed to produce the accountant but the department also in penalty proceedings made no effort to summon him. 10.4 In view of the above, we are not inclined to uphold the order of the authorities below for levying the penalty under the provisions of section

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

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 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2008-09 vide order dated 30-12-2010. Accordingly, the learned AR claimed that the contention of the assessee should also be accepted for the year under consideration. Page 7 of 11 ITA nos.170-398/Ahd/2012 and others Asstt. Year 2008-09. 6. The learned DR has not brought anything on record

YOGESH JASHUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4) NOW WARD- 1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

capital gains deserves to be deleted. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee on the quantum issue is allowed. 11. As regards the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, once the quantum addition itself stands deleted, the foundation for the penalty automatically collapses. Moreover, the assessee had furnished full particulars of income, including a valuation report prepared

YOGESH JASHUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4) NOW WARD- 1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

capital gains deserves to be deleted. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee on the quantum issue is allowed. 11. As regards the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, once the quantum addition itself stands deleted, the foundation for the penalty automatically collapses. Moreover, the assessee had furnished full particulars of income, including a valuation report prepared

SHRI BALDEVBHAI ATMARAM PATEL,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 139(4). Assessee filed late return, in the return of income, the assessee neither claimed any exemption u/s 54F, 54B rather he has shown only net capital gain. Such benefits were also denied to him. Further that, while calculating the capital gain, the assessee shown to have incurred expenditure of Rs.3,66,249

THE ACIT, PANCHMAHAL CIRCLE,, GODHRA vs. MS. GRISHMABEN M. SOLANKI,, PANCHMAHAL

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Years : 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner Of Ms. Grishmaben M. Solanki, Income-Tax, Vs Rajmahal Road, Devgarh Baria, Panchmahal Circle, Panchmahal, Gujarat-389380 Godhra Pan : Cyops 3860 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri C.S. Sharma, Sr. Dr Assessee By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-4, Vadodara (“Cit(A)” In Short) Dated 20.09.2017 Whereby He Cancelled The Penalty Of Rs.56,56,420/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short).

Capital Gain. The A.O. observed that the assessee was in agreement with the valuation and consequent addition on account of LTCG. By agreeing to the additions the assessee is not absolved form its culpability and as per IT Act ACIT Vs. Grishmaben M. Solanki AY : 2012-13 3 mens-rea is not required to be proved by the Revenue. Hence

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

PRADIPSINH KARANSINH THAKOR,VADODARA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed) [Through Virtual Court]

capital gains. The burden cast upon the appellant by the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) can be said to have been discharged by the appellant. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 holding in para 9, 10 & 12 from the gist as under: Reading

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI JIGNESH VIRAMBHAI RABARI,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Section 2(47) of the Act it is clear that transfer includes sale, exchange or relinquishment of asset or extinguishment of any right therein. Here in the present case the appellant has extinguished his right to purchase the land and for this, he has received an amount of Rs.5.26 crore. Considering this the amount received by the appellant is comes