DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 1 1, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. BHARAT LAKHAJI NANDWANA, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain shall be exempt to the extent specified in the section. 25. Thus, the statutory requirement under section 54 clearly stipulates that the assessee must have “purchased” a residential house within two years from the date of transfer of the original asset. In the absence of a registered conveyance deed or purchase deed showing the actual purchase

RAVINDRABHAI SHANKARBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(5) NOW ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), VADODARA

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalthe Ito Ravindrabhai Shankarbhai Vs. Ward-1(2)(5). Patel Now Ito, Ward-1(2)(2) 86,Kanha Residency Vadodara – 390 007 Kalali Road, Kalali Ahmedabad – 390 012 [Pan : Aigpp 8415 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Assessee Represented By : Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue Represented By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026

26,830/- under section 54B and Rs.16,71,696/- under section 54F were disallowed. As a result, the Assessing Officer computed the long-term capital gains

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI KAILASH RAMAVATAR GOENKA, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

capital gains. The CIT(A) allowed deduction for unaccounted expenses related to these transactions for calculating taxable gains and restricted indexation benefits to the year of receipt of sale consideration. • Internal Circulation of Funds: Such transactions include Fund transfers within group entities treated as unexplained income by the AO. The CIT(A) recognised these as internal fund movements and treated

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI MAHESH SOMABHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

capital gains on sale of shares of SRK Industries Ltd in the sum of Rs. 2,26,36,372/- as unexplained income of the assessee treating the same as just an accommodation entry. The ld AO is directed to grant exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act in the sum of Rs. 2,26,36,372/- to the assessee. Accordingly

JCIT(OSD), CIR-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE (INDIA) LTD, HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

capital gain tax. Similarly, under section 47(vid) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 if there is an issue or transfer ITA Nos. 1184/Ahd/2018 & 1225/Ahd/2018 Assessee : Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (I) Ltd Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 26

RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA PVT. LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA LTD.,),HARYANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

capital gain tax. Similarly, under section 47(vid) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 if there is an issue or transfer ITA Nos. 1184/Ahd/2018 & 1225/Ahd/2018 Assessee : Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (I) Ltd Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 26

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain on sale of land. The aforesaid additions were also later confirmed by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court vide order dated 09.10.2018. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) while confirming levy of penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act in the hands of the assessee

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain on sale of land. The aforesaid additions were also later confirmed by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court vide order dated 09.10.2018. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) while confirming levy of penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act in the hands of the assessee

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain on sale of land. The aforesaid additions were also later confirmed by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court vide order dated 09.10.2018. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) while confirming levy of penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act in the hands of the assessee

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain on sale of land. The aforesaid additions were also later confirmed by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court vide order dated 09.10.2018. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) while confirming levy of penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act in the hands of the assessee

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain on sale of land. The aforesaid additions were also later confirmed by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court vide order dated 09.10.2018. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) while confirming levy of penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act in the hands of the assessee

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain on sale of land. The aforesaid additions were also later confirmed by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court vide order dated 09.10.2018. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) while confirming levy of penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act in the hands of the assessee

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain on sale of land. The aforesaid additions were also later confirmed by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court vide order dated 09.10.2018. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) while confirming levy of penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act in the hands of the assessee

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain on sale of land. The aforesaid additions were also later confirmed by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court vide order dated 09.10.2018. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) while confirming levy of penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act in the hands of the assessee

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain on sale of land. The aforesaid additions were also later confirmed by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court vide order dated 09.10.2018. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) while confirming levy of penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act in the hands of the assessee

SHAILESH S. JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

capital gain on sale of shares by assessee was an arranged affair to convert its own unaccounted money and thus, exemption claimed under section 10(38) on sale of shares had rightly been disallowed. 25. In view of the above judicial precedents as applied in the assessee set of facts as discussed in the preceding paragraphs

SHAILESH SUBODHCHANDRA JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

capital gain on sale of shares by assessee was an arranged affair to convert its own unaccounted money and thus, exemption claimed under section 10(38) on sale of shares had rightly been disallowed. 25. In view of the above judicial precedents as applied in the assessee set of facts as discussed in the preceding paragraphs

SHAILESH SUBODHCHANDRA JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

capital gain on sale of shares by assessee was an arranged affair to convert its own unaccounted money and thus, exemption claimed under section 10(38) on sale of shares had rightly been disallowed. 25. In view of the above judicial precedents as applied in the assessee set of facts as discussed in the preceding paragraphs

THE ACIT. CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDBAD vs. RAJENDRA HARJIVANDAS PRAJAPATI, AHMEDBAD

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

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

section 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual deriving income from business and capital gain. For the Asst. Year 2011-12, the assessee filed his Return of Income wherein assessment