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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

6. The issue involves levy of penalty under Section 271AAA on two additions made while framing assessment, consequent to search carried out on 21.09.2010: Amt. (Rs.) Particulars Rs.1,89,43,840/- Undisclosed consideration on sale of land Rs.1,48,00,000/- Protective addition w.r.t. undisclosed capital gain

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

6. The issue involves levy of penalty under Section 271AAA on two additions made while framing assessment, consequent to search carried out on 21.09.2010: Amt. (Rs.) Particulars Rs.1,89,43,840/- Undisclosed consideration on sale of land Rs.1,48,00,000/- Protective addition w.r.t. undisclosed capital gain

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

6. The issue involves levy of penalty under Section 271AAA on two additions made while framing assessment, consequent to search carried out on 21.09.2010: Amt. (Rs.) Particulars Rs.1,89,43,840/- Undisclosed consideration on sale of land Rs.1,48,00,000/- Protective addition w.r.t. undisclosed capital gain

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

6. The issue involves levy of penalty under Section 271AAA on two additions made while framing assessment, consequent to search carried out on 21.09.2010: Amt. (Rs.) Particulars Rs.1,89,43,840/- Undisclosed consideration on sale of land Rs.1,48,00,000/- Protective addition w.r.t. undisclosed capital gain

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

6. The issue involves levy of penalty under Section 271AAA on two additions made while framing assessment, consequent to search carried out on 21.09.2010: Amt. (Rs.) Particulars Rs.1,89,43,840/- Undisclosed consideration on sale of land Rs.1,48,00,000/- Protective addition w.r.t. undisclosed capital gain

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

6. The issue involves levy of penalty under Section 271AAA on two additions made while framing assessment, consequent to search carried out on 21.09.2010: Amt. (Rs.) Particulars Rs.1,89,43,840/- Undisclosed consideration on sale of land Rs.1,48,00,000/- Protective addition w.r.t. undisclosed capital gain

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

6. The issue involves levy of penalty under Section 271AAA on two additions made while framing assessment, consequent to search carried out on 21.09.2010: Amt. (Rs.) Particulars Rs.1,89,43,840/- Undisclosed consideration on sale of land Rs.1,48,00,000/- Protective addition w.r.t. undisclosed capital gain

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

6. The issue involves levy of penalty under Section 271AAA on two additions made while framing assessment, consequent to search carried out on 21.09.2010: Amt. (Rs.) Particulars Rs.1,89,43,840/- Undisclosed consideration on sale of land Rs.1,48,00,000/- Protective addition w.r.t. undisclosed capital gain

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

6. The issue involves levy of penalty under Section 271AAA on two additions made while framing assessment, consequent to search carried out on 21.09.2010: Amt. (Rs.) Particulars Rs.1,89,43,840/- Undisclosed consideration on sale of land Rs.1,48,00,000/- Protective addition w.r.t. undisclosed capital gain

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

6,61,31,749/- by the CIT(A) across properties and assessment years were as follows: • Short-Term Capital Gains (Shilpgram - AY 2017-18): Rs. 1,43,82,753/-. • Long-Term Capital Gains (Shilpgram - AY 2019-20): Rs. 1,07,53,755/-. • Long-Term Capital Gains (Khoraj - AY 2019-20): Rs. 3,76,77,305/-. • Short-Term Capital Gains (Silver

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR vs. SHRI VALLABHBHAI DHANJIBHAI PATEL, BHAVNAGAR

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: The Tribunal On

Capital Gain of Rs. 6,99,62,674/- in the hands of the assessee and demanded tax thereon. 5. Aggrieved against the re-assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who deleted the addition by passing a very detailed order considering section 43

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

6 of investments to the balance sheet as on 31st March, 2008. These facts demonstrate that assessee was having enough interest free own fund and there was no unsecured loan reflected in the balance sheet of the company. Therefore, we are not inclined with the decision of the Id. CIT(A) to make disallowance in respect of interest expenses

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

6 of investments to the balance sheet as on 31st March, 2008. These facts demonstrate that assessee was having enough interest free own fund and there was no unsecured loan reflected in the balance sheet of the company. Therefore, we are not inclined with the decision of the Id. CIT(A) to make disallowance in respect of interest expenses

M/S. BODAL CHEMICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

43(6) Explanation 2(d) is to prohibit claim of higher depreciation on depreciated asset existing in books of IT(SS)A No. 27 to 30/Ahd/2021 and 14/Ahd/2022 A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2010-11 DCIT vs. M/s Bodal Chemicals Ltd. ITA No. 318/Ahd/2022 IT(SS)A No. 11 to 13/Ahd/2022 A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2012-13 M/s Bodal Chemicals

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

43,500/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act by reason of the failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment.” In the case of Sumati Dayal vs. Ld. CIT(A) 214 ITR 801 (SC), the 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court has stressed upon

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

43,500/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act by reason of the failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment.” In the case of Sumati Dayal vs. Ld. CIT(A) 214 ITR 801 (SC), the 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court has stressed upon

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

43,500/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act by reason of the failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment.” In the case of Sumati Dayal vs. Ld. CIT(A) 214 ITR 801 (SC), the 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court has stressed upon

SHRI NAVINCHANDRA N. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

6. Basis of forming reason to believe and details of escapement of income: (i) According to section 2(47)(iv) of the Act, if capital asset is converted into stock-in- trade or treated as stock-in-trade by the owner, such conversion or treatment shall be regarded as transfer. Further

SHRI KIRANKUMAR RASIKLAL SANGHVI,DEESA vs. THE PR.CIT-4,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi, The Principal Commissioner Of 1, Paras Society, Neminathnagar Income-Tax-4, Vs. Road, Deesa, Gujarat-385535 Ahmedabad Pan : Afops 0131 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri Durga Dutt, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-4, Ahmedabad [Herein- After Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 03.03.2020, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Noted The Present Appeal To Be Barred By Limitation By 1355 Days. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Explained That There Was, In Fact, No Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal For The Reason That The Assessee Had Inadvertently Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit Before The Surat Bench Of The Itat Which, When The Appeal Came Up For Hearing Before It, Passed A Judicial Order Dated 21.11.2023 Dismissing The Appeal As Withdrawn, Noting The Fact That The Correct Jurisdiction Lay With The 2 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi Vs. Pcit Ay : 2015-16

capital gain Rs.5,74,66,137/- 7. Thus, in effect, the Ld. PCIT has, on merits, given a finding that two properties as noted above qualified as residential houses in terms of Section 54F of the Act, disentitling the claim of exemption/deduction of the assessee u/s 54F of the Act. Having said so, we find that there is no basis