DCIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ALPESHKUMAR C.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1908/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive In Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. Pan: Aeapp9489G

capital gain in the event the assessee makes the sale of its bungalow in dispute. It is because the revenue has not doubted on the incurrence of such expenses while framing the assessment. Besides the above, all the necessary details of the construction expenses were made available to the authorities below along with the addresses and the payments were made

VINODCHANDRA T PARIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 457/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Vinodchandra T. Parikh, I.T.O, 31, Shail, Vs. Ward-2(1)(2), Opp. Madhusudan House, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad.

capital gain under section 54.[Para 2] Asstt. Year 2013-14 9 It is to be agreed with the view taken by the Delhi High Court to come to the conclusion that the purchase would be computed when the consideration is duly paid by the assessee for the purpose of purchasing the premises and the construction had already commenced

SHRI BHUPESH NAVINCHANDRA RAVAL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2287/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14)

302, Shreeji Villa Apartment Ahmedabad Shyamal Cross Road Satellite Ahmedabad-380 015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ABJPR 0165 M .. (""यथ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Nirav Shah, AR ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Anand Kumar, Sr.DR 22/02/2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement

SHANTABEN PARASMAL JAIN,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 726/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shantaben Parasmal Jain, Vs. Dcit, 27, Vijay Society, Cir – 3(1), New Khanderao Road., Vadodara. Baroda. Pan No. Abwpj 8597 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prakash D. Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri S. N. Dev, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-I, Vadodara [“Cit(A)” In Short] Relevant To Assessment Year 2010- 11. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings & Therefore The Order Passed By The Learned Ao Is Required To Be Quashed. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Confirming The Disallowance Of Long Term Capital Gain Of Rs. 87,57,789/- As Exempt Income & Adding Back To The Total Income Of The Appellant & Therefore The Learned Ao Should Be Directed To Allow The Claim Of Exempt Income. 3. That The Appellant Craves Liberty To Add, Amend, Alter & Delete Any Grounds Of Appeal Before The Final Hearing.”

Capital Gain shown by the appellant. Such information is on the basis of statement given by Mr. Mukesh Choksi and other incriminating documents found during the course of search in his group companies, which were found to be in the business of providing accommodation entries. Reopening of assessment under similar circumstances has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court

KUM. NALINI SURRENDRABHAI PATEL,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain on 20.7.2009 and declared a total income of Rs.1,09,210/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act, and thereafter taken for scrutiny assessment and notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were served upon the assessee. The assessee submitted various details as are required under the notice

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. SHAH INVESTORS HOME LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross

section 194J in respect of lease line charges after following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. reported in (2016) 383. In the light of the above facts and judicial findings, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue, therefore, this ground of appeal of the revenue

SMT. BHAVNA HITESH RAWAL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- I.T.A No. 2743/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 2 Smt. Bhavna Hitesh Rawal vs. ITO “Your appellant being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Commissioner of income-tax (Appeals) -5, Ahmedabadpresents this appeal against the same

SHRI JANI PARASMAL VAGHMAL (HUF),,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(5),, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1354/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Jain Parasmal Vaghmal(Huf), I.T.O., 27, Vijay Society, Vs. Ward-3(1)(5), New Khanderao Road, Vadodara. Baroda.

capital gain shown by him. Such information is on the basis of statement give by Shri Mukesh Choksi and also on the basis of other incriminating documents found during the course of search in his group companies which were found to be engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries, It is mentioned that the reopening of the assessment

SANDEEP MOHANRAJ SINGHI,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE4(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 12AA of the Act. The assessee had received 80,00,000 numbers of equity shares of e-Infochips Limited as corpus donation from its trustee Shri Pratul Krishnakant Shroff on 12.12.2017. Thereafter, all the shares of e-Infochips Limited, including those held by the assessee, were acquired by Arrow Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as “Arrow”). Arrow

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-6,, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI RAJNIKANT KANUBHAI PATEL,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, and that of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 148 on 4.3.2013. The ld.AO has observed that since vendees have accepted payment of on-money in this land transaction in their return of income, therefore, it is to be construed that vendors might have received on-money and capital gain ought to be assessed in their hands of that on-money. He worked out short capital gain

THE ITO, WARD-6(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI UPENDRA GANPATRAM PATEL, HUF,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, and that of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 148 on 4.3.2013. The ld.AO has observed that since vendees have accepted payment of on-money in this land transaction in their return of income, therefore, it is to be construed that vendors might have received on-money and capital gain ought to be assessed in their hands of that on-money. He worked out short capital gain

SHRI SHANTILAL RANCHODDAS PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, and that of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 148 on 4.3.2013. The ld.AO has observed that since vendees have accepted payment of on-money in this land transaction in their return of income, therefore, it is to be construed that vendors might have received on-money and capital gain ought to be assessed in their hands of that on-money. He worked out short capital gain

THE ITO, WARD-6(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI HARIBHAI MEGHJIBHAI PATEL,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, and that of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 148 on 4.3.2013. The ld.AO has observed that since vendees have accepted payment of on-money in this land transaction in their return of income, therefore, it is to be construed that vendors might have received on-money and capital gain ought to be assessed in their hands of that on-money. He worked out short capital gain

BHAVIN PIYUSHBHAI PALKHIWALA,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2646/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11) Bhavin Piyushbhai The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Palkhiwala Ward-2(1)(4) Vs. 302, Shapath-3 Ahmedabad Nr.Gnfc Info Tower Sg Highway Ahmedabad-380 054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aeapp 8972 Q .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Dipak R. Thakkar, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri O.P. Pathak, Sr.Dr

302, Shapath-3 Ahmedabad Nr.GNFC Info Tower SG Highway Ahmedabad-380 054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AEAPP 8972 Q .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri Dipak R. Thakkar, AR ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by: Shri O.P. Pathak, Sr.DR 28/03/2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date

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

Section 12AA of the Act. The assessee\nhad received 80,00,000 numbers of equity shares of e-Infochips\nLimited as corpus donation from its trustee Shri Pratul Krishnakant\nShroff on 12.12.2017. Thereafter, all the shares of e-Infochips\nLimited, including those held by the assessee, were acquired by\nArrow Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as “Arrow”).\nArrow

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

Section 12AA of the Act. The assessee\nhad received 80,00,000 numbers of equity shares of e-Infochips\nLimited as corpus donation from its trustee Shri Pratul Krishnakant\nShroff on 12.12.2017. Thereafter, all the shares of e-Infochips\nLimited, including those held by the assessee, were acquired by\nArrow Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as “Arrow”).\nArrow

THE UNITED BUILDERS CORPORATION ,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

capital gain. And\nthere was no question of the jurisdiction assumed by the AO\ntherefore u/s 153C of the Act being not in accordance with law.\n12. Reference was made to various case laws by both the sides and\nsubmissions in writing were filed by both the parties. The same are\nbeing reproduced hereunder:\nSubmissions of the assessee in this

MODERN CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

capital gain. And\nthere was no question of the jurisdiction assumed by the AO\ntherefore u/s 153C of the Act being not in accordance with law.\n12. Reference was made to various case laws by both the sides and\nsubmissions in writing were filed by both the parties. The same are\nbeing reproduced hereunder:\nSubmissions of the assessee in this

THE MODERN CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(4), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

capital gain. And\nthere was no question of the jurisdiction assumed by the AO\ntherefore u/s 153C of the Act being not in accordance with law.\n12. Reference was made to various case laws by both the sides and\nsubmissions in writing were filed by both the parties. The same are\nbeing reproduced hereunder:\nSubmissions of the assessee in this