THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD vs. NIRMA CHEMICALS WORKS PVT.LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

capital gain or interest income is also covered in the favour of the assessee by the combined order of this tribunal in own case of the assessee along with the case of Hiren-bhai Patel for A.Y. 2002-03 vide order dated 15th February 2013 in ITA No. 1252/Ahd/2006. The relevant finding of the bench reds as under: The facts

NIRMA CHEMICALS WORKS PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

capital gain or interest income is also covered in the favour of the assessee by the combined order of this tribunal in own case of the assessee along with the case of Hiren-bhai Patel for A.Y. 2002-03 vide order dated 15th February 2013 in ITA No. 1252/Ahd/2006. The relevant finding of the bench reds as under: The facts

NIRMA CHEMICAL WORKS PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

capital gain or interest income is also covered in the favour of the assessee by the combined order of this tribunal in own case of the assessee along with the case of Hiren-bhai Patel for A.Y. 2002-03 vide order dated 15th February 2013 in ITA No. 1252/Ahd/2006. The relevant finding of the bench reds as under: The facts

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD vs. NIRMA CHEMICALS WORKS PVT.LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

capital gain or interest income is also covered in the favour of the assessee by the combined order of this tribunal in own case of the assessee along with the case of Hiren-bhai Patel for A.Y. 2002-03 vide order dated 15th February 2013 in ITA No. 1252/Ahd/2006. The relevant finding of the bench reds as under: The facts

NIRMA CHEMICALS WORKS PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

capital gain or interest income is also covered in the favour of the assessee by the combined order of this tribunal in own case of the assessee along with the case of Hiren-bhai Patel for A.Y. 2002-03 vide order dated 15th February 2013 in ITA No. 1252/Ahd/2006. The relevant finding of the bench reds as under: The facts

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD vs. NIRMA CHEMICALS WORKS PVT.LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

capital gain or interest income is also covered in the favour of the assessee by the combined order of this tribunal in own case of the assessee along with the case of Hiren-bhai Patel for A.Y. 2002-03 vide order dated 15th February 2013 in ITA No. 1252/Ahd/2006. The relevant finding of the bench reds as under: The facts

THE ITO, WARD-2(2)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI JAYANTILAL MAFATLAL PRAJAPATI,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1476/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

section 271(1)(c). The assessee voluntarily disclosed additional income during the course of assessment proceedings and paid tax thereon. Even though the revised return was found to be invalid, the Assessing Officer accepted the income as declared in the revised return and computation. The Assessing Officer did not bring any material on record that the declaration of income made

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

Gain Rs.13,50,000/- 3. Addition on account of disallowance of long term capital Rs.13,50,000/- loss 4. Unexplained capital addition Rs.2,25,000/- 5. Addition on account of income from other sources Rs.3,00,000/- 4.1 The above additions were also confirmed by the learned CIT-A vide order dated 28 June 2012 and thereafter the assessee

MS. VARSHA JITENDRA TEKWANI,,BARODA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1623/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Ms Varsha Jitendra Tekwani, Income-Tax Officer, Flat No.302, Vs. Ward-3(1)(4), Jay Ranchod Avenue, Vadodara. Harni-Varasiya Ring Road, Vadodara.

capital gain at ₹ 9,52,775/-. 4.1 The AO in the assessment initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by issuing notice under section 274

KIRITKUMAR FAKIRCHAND MEHTA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 349/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Kiritkumar Fakirchand Mehta, A.C.I.T., 2Nd Floor, P.K. House, Vs. Circle-5(2), B/H, Mj Library, Ahmedabad. Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad.

gain on the transfer of capital asset. The AO in the assessment also initiated the penalty proceedings under section 274

THE JT. CIT, RANGE-9, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI NIKETAN KISHORCHANDRA PATEL,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

Section 36(l)(iii) is very clear in its wording that deduction for interest expenses will be allowed only if the capital borrowed is utilized for the purpose of business or profession of the assessee. However, the assessee, despite provided with sufficient opportunities, failed to establish the utilization of funds for business purpose substantiated with convincing supporting evidences. In view

ACIT CC 2(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. AISHA DHIRAJ GOGIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result: 50. To summarize the final outcome:

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha["ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" एवं "ी नरे" साद िस!ा, लेखा सद" के सम#।]

section 132(4) during the course of search action and observed that Mr. Shiv Kumar Gogia had admitted that he had obtained accommodation entries in respect of Long-Term capital Gains on sale of shares. He accordingly made the impugned addition. 39. Findings of the Ld. CIT(A): The Ld. CITA deleted the addition so made

MUKESH RAMCHANDRA PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2010-11 Mukesh Ramchandra Patel, Deputy Commissioner Of 1397, Patel-Vas, Mithakhali Gam, Vs Income-Tax, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380015 Circle 1(2), Pan : Aggpp 5391 R Ahmedabad अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S N Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Deelip Kumar, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08/01/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2020

274 and 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "undisclosed income" means— (i) any income of the specified previous year represented, either wholly or partly, by any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any entry

SHRI NITINBHAI TULSIDAS CHOTTANI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1562 & 1563/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-09 & 2010-11

capital gain offered by the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) r.w.s 274 is separately initiated for concealing the particulars of total income.” 4. In the assessment year 2010-11, originally the assessee has not filed return of income under section

SHRI NITINBHAI TULSIDAS CHOTTANI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1562 & 1563/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-09 & 2010-11

capital gain offered by the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) r.w.s 274 is separately initiated for concealing the particulars of total income.” 4. In the assessment year 2010-11, originally the assessee has not filed return of income under section

THE ACIT, ,MEHSANA CIRCLE,, MEHSANA vs. SHRI MAULIKKUMAR MANILAL PATEL, MEHSANA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2055/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 The A.C.I.T., Shri Maulikkumar Manilal Patel, Mehsana Circle, Vs. Opp. Umiya Complex, Mehsana. Apollo Compound, Highway, Mehsana-384002. Pan: Abxpp3020D

capital gain which is exempted u/s 10(38) but an income chargeable to tax which is not disputed by either party. The “the Ld. CIT(A)” following the contention of the assessee that the assessee has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income and relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro

THE ACIT, ,MEHSANA CIRCLE,, MEHSANA vs. SHRI MANANKUMAR MANILAL PATEL, MEHSANA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2055/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 The A.C.I.T., Shri Maulikkumar Manilal Patel, Mehsana Circle, Vs. Opp. Umiya Complex, Mehsana. Apollo Compound, Highway, Mehsana-384002. Pan: Abxpp3020D

capital gain which is exempted u/s 10(38) but an income chargeable to tax which is not disputed by either party. The “the Ld. CIT(A)” following the contention of the assessee that the assessee has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income and relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro

FALGUNI S. MEHTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gains" on sale of shares\nand securities of Rs.5,90,935/-. Further, Ld. DR has also not brought\nanything on record to controvert the aforesaid facts during the course\nof arguments before us. Accordingly, in our considered view, so far as\nthe levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is concerned, no penalty is leviable\nu/s.271