DR K R SHROFF FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXMP, AHMEDABAD

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

capital gain on sale of 80,00,000 shares donated to\nthe assessee trust, was avoided by the trustee by making this\narrangement, was not denied. In view of this fact, the Ld. CIT(A) had\nrightly invoked the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act to deny the\nclaim of exemption under Section

SUMIT H BHAGCHANDANI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

270A of the Act is unjustified. 4. Appellant craves leave to add/alter grounds of appeal.” Sumit H Bhagchandani vs. DCIT Asst. Year –2017-18 - 2– 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri Sumit Harishbhai Bhagchandani, filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 on 30.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.2

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCE LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

3,84,012/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act since the same was deposited beyond the statutory due date, relying on the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court ruling in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and subsequent amendments brought by Finance Act 2021 which clarified that section 43B relief is not available for employees’ contribution deposited beyond due date

DCIE CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHEMDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

3,84,012/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act since the same was deposited beyond the statutory due date, relying on the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court ruling in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and subsequent amendments brought by Finance Act 2021 which clarified that section 43B relief is not available for employees’ contribution deposited beyond due date

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

3,84,012/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act since the same was deposited beyond the statutory due date, relying on the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court ruling in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and subsequent amendments brought by Finance Act 2021 which clarified that section 43B relief is not available for employees’ contribution deposited beyond due date

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

3,84,012/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act since the same was deposited beyond the statutory due date, relying on the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court ruling in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and subsequent amendments brought by Finance Act 2021 which clarified that section 43B relief is not available for employees’ contribution deposited beyond due date

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

3,84,012/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act since the same was deposited beyond the statutory due date, relying on the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court ruling in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and subsequent amendments brought by Finance Act 2021 which clarified that section 43B relief is not available for employees’ contribution deposited beyond due date

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION - THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

3,84,012/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act since the same was deposited beyond the statutory due date, relying on the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court ruling in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and subsequent amendments brought by Finance Act 2021 which clarified that section 43B relief is not available for employees’ contribution deposited beyond due date

SHAILESH NATVARLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19

capital gain of Rs.6,96,236/- to tax. Penalty proceedings under section 270A were also initiated for misreporting of income. 3

HAZIRA PORT PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CICLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the above terms

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

270A of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Appellant did not furnish any inaccurate particulars of income Each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the Appellant. The Appellant prays for leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT , BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed

3,84,012/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act since the same was deposited\nbeyond the statutory due date, relying on the jurisdictional Gujarat High\nCourt ruling in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and subsequent\namendments brought by Finance Act 2021 which clarified that section 43B\nrelief is not available for employees' contribution deposited beyond due date.\nThe

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed

gains must be considered as\npart of eligible income and recomputed the deduction under section 80-IE\naccordingly. Further, the assessee made additional claims during assessment\nproceedings namely exclusion of GST/excise refund from book profit and\ngrant of indexation while computing book profit u/s 115JB. The AO rejected\nthese claims on the ground that such relief could be claimed only

PARULBEN VIJAYKUMAR PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gain amounting to Rs. 22,20,156/- by filing return of income and if, the case of the assessee was not reopened under Section 147 of the Act, the assessee would not have reported the escaped amount and then, the said amount would have escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer, therefore, initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A Parulben Vijakumar Patel

ASHOKBHAI KHODABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18

capital gain arising on sale of property and, therefore, the returned income was accepted vide assessment order under section 147/144B of the Act dated 24.03.2022. Since the assessee did not file his original return of income, penalty proceeding under section 270A of the Act was initiated for under- reporting of income. Thereafter, a separate penalty order under section 270A dated

HASMUKHLAL ISHVARLAL PATEL,PATAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, PATAN

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Capital Gains" and added it back to the income of the assessee. The assessment was completed on ex-parte basis under section 144 of the Act at a total income of ₹18,85,140/-. Penalty proceedings under Sections 270A for misreporting of income were separately initiated by the Assessing Officer. ITA 763/Ahd/2025 relates to the assessee’s appeal with respect

HASMUKHLAL ISHVARLAL PATEL,PATAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, PATAN

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Capital Gains" and added it back to the income of the assessee. The assessment was completed on ex-parte basis under section 144 of the Act at a total income of ₹18,85,140/-. Penalty proceedings under Sections 270A for misreporting of income were separately initiated by the Assessing Officer. ITA 763/Ahd/2025 relates to the assessee’s appeal with respect

KRUNAL SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

3. The Ld. DR, however, objected to the condonation of delay stating that the delay was substantial. 4. Having heard both the parties, we find that the assessee has demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in filing of the present appeal. The delay has been shown to be attributable due to a change in the authorized representative/tax consultant handling

ASHOK AMARNATH AGRAWAL,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

3– 7. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that, • the reopening is factually incorrect as the AO reopened assessment alleging LTCG of Rs.10,94,043/- in Kushal Ltd., whereas the assessee actually incurred Short Term Capital Loss (STCL) of Rs.17,37,089/- in that scrip. • the LTCG earned by assessee relates to other shares; hence, reopening is based on wrong