ACIT (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. DR K R SHROFF FOUNDATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\n\n29

capital gain payment on the part of the assessee. The Ld. Sr.\n\nITA Nos.1205 & 769/Ahd/2025\n Assessment Years: 2018-19\nACIT(E) vs. Dr. KR Shroff Foundation\nPage 16 of 24\n\nCounsel further submitted that the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the\nAct can be applied in respect of transactions as notified in Section

SHRI AJAY REGHUBHAI BHARWAD,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessees are dismissed

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

c) The capital asset should be something which can be acquired by paying a cost i.e., it should be capable of determining the cost of acquisition of the capital asset. (d) There must be accrual of consideration for transfer of capital asset. Profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset made in a previous year is taxable

AJAY REGHUBHAI BHARWAD,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessees are dismissed

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

c) The capital asset should be something which can be acquired by paying a cost i.e., it should be capable of determining the cost of acquisition of the capital asset. (d) There must be accrual of consideration for transfer of capital asset. Profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset made in a previous year is taxable

SHRI PIYUSH M DOBARIYA,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(4), VADODARA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessees are dismissed

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

c) The capital asset should be something which can be acquired by paying a cost i.e., it should be capable of determining the cost of acquisition of the capital asset. (d) There must be accrual of consideration for transfer of capital asset. Profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset made in a previous year is taxable

DAWOODI BOHRA MUSAFIRKHANA TRUST,KHAMBHAT vs. THE ITO, WARD (EXEMPTION), VADODARA

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

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. Dawoodi Bohra Musafirkhana Income-Tax Officer, Trust, Ward (Exemption), 1, Dawoodi Bohra Musafirkhana, Vadodara Opp. Bus Stand, Khambhat, Gujarat-388620 Pan : Aaatd 2007 L अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Ankit Chokshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03.05.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta:

253/- was claimed as exempt u/s 11(1)(d) of the Act, Rs.99,12,380/- of the corpus donation utilized for capital purposes was also claimed as exempt u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act. It is in this background of facts that both the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee had claimed double exemption

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 gain at Rs. 6,19,962/- as against Rs. 1,56,248/- declared by the assessee. Accordingly, an addition of Rs. 4,63,534/- was made to the total income on account of understatement of LTCG. The AO assessed the income at Rs. 6,19,780/-. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing

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 gain at Rs. 6,19,962/- as against Rs. 1,56,248/- declared by the assessee. Accordingly, an addition of Rs. 4,63,534/- was made to the total income on account of understatement of LTCG. The AO assessed the income at Rs. 6,19,780/-. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

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

c) of the Act was not applicable in respect of assessment years 2000-01 to 2005-06. We have also carefully considered the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts on which reliance has been placed by the Ld. Sr. Counsel in respect of reopening of the cases beyond 6 years. The lead judgment in this regard

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

c) of the Act was not applicable in respect of assessment years 2000-01 to 2005-06. We have also carefully considered the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts on which reliance has been placed by the Ld. Sr. Counsel in respect of reopening of the cases beyond 6 years. The lead judgment in this regard

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

c) of the Act was not applicable in respect of assessment years 2000-01 to 2005-06. We have also carefully considered the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts on which reliance has been placed by the Ld. Sr. Counsel in respect of reopening of the cases beyond 6 years. The lead judgment in this regard

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

c) of the Act was not applicable in respect of assessment years 2000-01 to 2005-06. We have also carefully considered the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts on which reliance has been placed by the Ld. Sr. Counsel in respect of reopening of the cases beyond 6 years. The lead judgment in this regard

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

c) of the Act was not applicable in respect of assessment years 2000-01 to 2005-06. We have also carefully considered the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts on which reliance has been placed by the Ld. Sr. Counsel in respect of reopening of the cases beyond 6 years. The lead judgment in this regard

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

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

c) of the Act was not applicable in respect of assessment years 2000-01 to 2005-06. We have also carefully considered the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts on which reliance has been placed by the Ld. Sr. Counsel in respect of reopening of the cases beyond 6 years. The lead judgment in this regard

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

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

c) of the Act was not applicable in respect of assessment years 2000-01 to 2005-06. We have also carefully considered the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts on which reliance has been placed by the Ld. Sr. Counsel in respect of reopening of the cases beyond 6 years. The lead judgment in this regard

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

c) of the Act was not applicable in respect of assessment years 2000-01 to 2005-06. We have also carefully considered the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts on which reliance has been placed by the Ld. Sr. Counsel in respect of reopening of the cases beyond 6 years. The lead judgment in this regard

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

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

c) of the Act was not applicable in respect of assessment years 2000-01 to 2005-06. We have also carefully considered the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts on which reliance has been placed by the Ld. Sr. Counsel in respect of reopening of the cases beyond 6 years. The lead judgment in this regard

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

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

c) of the Act was not applicable in respect of assessment years 2000-01 to 2005-06. We have also carefully considered the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts on which reliance has been placed by the Ld. Sr. Counsel in respect of reopening of the cases beyond 6 years. The lead judgment in this regard

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

c) of the Act was not applicable in respect of assessment years 2000-01 to 2005-06. We have also carefully considered the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts on which reliance has been placed by the Ld. Sr. Counsel in respect of reopening of the cases beyond 6 years. The lead judgment in this regard