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

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 31.07.2012, declaring total income of Rs.1,20,000/-. Notice ITA No. 904&905/Ahd/2023 Babubhai Ramanbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst. Years –2012-13 & 2015-16 under Section 148 of the act. Act was issued on 28.03.2019. Assessment Order under Section 144 r.w.s

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

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 31.07.2012, declaring total income of Rs.1,20,000/-. Notice ITA No. 904&905/Ahd/2023 Babubhai Ramanbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst. Years –2012-13 & 2015-16 under Section 148 of the act. Act was issued on 28.03.2019. Assessment Order under Section 144 r.w.s

GIVE FOUNDATION,BANGALORE vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the primary matter involved in all the Assessment

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gain ignoring fact that income of the trust is required to tax by applying section 11 & 12 of the Act only. Give Foundation vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2017-18 - 3– (b) Ld. NFAC also erred in law and on facts in giving above direction which results in enhancement of income without issuing show cause notice u/s 251(2

BHAVNA NACHIKETAN BAROT,VADODARA vs. ITO WARD - 1, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2015-16

2,52,410/-. In support of the same assessee supported the computation of income and tax-paid challan. Thus, the addition made as capital gain income is liable to be deleted. 6) On the facts and In the circumstances of the case and as per the law, the order dated 28.11.2024 as passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

2 per cent. We observe that in the instant facts, the assessee has computed the ALP at LIBOR plus 2.5%. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has upheld the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer on the Ground that the assessee has not given the comparable basis for arriving at the aforesaid rate. However, in our view, the Ld. CIT(Appeals

NIRAJ PRATAPBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(2)(FORMERLY ITO, WARD-3(3)(3)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench

capital gain , and the assessee being beneficiary of such tax evasion wherein the assessee has carried out transaction of Rs. 2,77,500/- in the scrip of Safal Herbs Limited . The additions of Rs. 2,77,500/- was made by the AO to the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. Alternatively

NIRAJ PRATAPBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(3)(2), (FORMERLY ITO, WARD-3(3)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench

capital gain , and the assessee being beneficiary of such tax evasion wherein the assessee has carried out transaction of Rs. 2,77,500/- in the scrip of Safal Herbs Limited . The additions of Rs. 2,77,500/- was made by the AO to the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. Alternatively

NALINI VIJAY SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

2),\nAhmedabad\n(Appellant)\n(Respondent)\nAppellant by :\nShri Vivek Chavda, A.R.\nRespondent by:\nMs. Neeju Gupta, Sr. DR\nDate of Hearing\n12.03.2025\nDate of Pronouncement\n13.03.2025\nORDER\nPER BENCH:\nThese appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the order\npassed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld.\nCIT(E)"), National Faceless Appeal Centre

ILABAHEN VIRALKUMAR MEHTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The

capital gains/losses to various beneficiaries. The assessee being one of the beneficiary. The assessee has not declared and disclosed the transaction of sale and purchase of shares of Hemo Organics Limited in the return of income filed u/s 139, while the assessee declared gains arising on the sale of 8000 shares in the return of income filed in response

HASMUKHBHAI HANSRAJ PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(7), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2015-16 Hasmukhbhai Hansraj Patel Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(3)(7) C-202, Suvas Residency Ahmedabad. Opp: Maghmalhar Society Nikol Road Ahmedabad 382350. Pan : Bpdpp 1078 Q

2,65,070/- and why such investment should not be treated as unexplained investment. These details as per Ld. CIT(Appeals) were relevant with regard to addition made by AO in Assessment Order because it is the claim of the Appellant that once the above referred property was sold, he had withdrawn the cash and partial amount was deposited

NALINI VIJAY SHAH,SATELLITE vs. WARD 3(1)(2) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

251(1)(a) as the assessment was concluded ex parte under section 144. 4.2 That in the law and/ or on facts, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have set a side the assessment as per Section 25 1(1) (a) as the assessment was concluded ex parte under section 144. 5.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred

NALINI VIJAY SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

251(1)(a) as the assessment was concluded ex parte under section 144. 4.2 That in the law and/ or on facts, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have set a side the assessment as per Section 25 1(1) (a) as the assessment was concluded ex parte under section 144. 5.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred

NALINI VIJAY SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

251(1)(a) as the assessment was concluded ex parte under section 144. 4.2 That in the law and/ or on facts, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have set a side the assessment as per Section 25 1(1) (a) as the assessment was concluded ex parte under section 144. 5.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred

ARVINDKUMAR AMULKH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (3), AHMEADABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Capital Gain (LTCG) may kindly be deleted and the direction given by the Ld. CIT (A) to the AO be quashed. 3. Such and further relief as the nature and circumstances of the case may justify.” (b) In ITA No.577/Ahd/2020 for AY 2015-16 “The Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in partly allowing

MUNJAL AUTO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with the direction that the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh in accordance with law

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Munjal Auto Industries Ltd. Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) 187 Gide Estate Vadodara. Waghodia Dist. Vadodara-391 760 Gujarat. Pan: Aaacg 8588 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Ms.Amrin Pathan, Ar Assessee By : Shri Yoeesh Mishra, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/09/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

section 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”) and thereby making disallowance of Rs. 53,36,814. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the learned AO and making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the facts on record in proper perspective

SHAILESHBHAI BHA vs. ANGBHAI CHAVDA,BHAVNAGARVS.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4) BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

gains/ short term capital loss/unsecured loans , and the total sale value of the scrips of these three companies aggregated to Rs.16,79,307/. Proceedings u/s. 147/148 were initiated against the assessee by the AO after recording of the reasons and after taking of necessary administrative approvals from the higher authorities. Notice u/s. 148 dated 30.03.2019 was issued and served upon

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

2 Samsung mobiles were also seized and inventorized in which certain evidences regarding foreign investment of the assessee was found. Further, that the search was conducted precisely for the reason that the foreign bank accounts of the assessee were not disclosed to the Department in their Income Tax returns. The information as available with the Department was confronted

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

2 Samsung mobiles were also seized and inventorized in which certain evidences regarding foreign investment of the assessee was found. Further, that the search was conducted precisely for the reason that the foreign bank accounts of the assessee were not disclosed to the Department in their Income Tax returns. The information as available with the Department was confronted