AJAY REGHUBHAI BHARWAD,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessees are dismissed

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

section 45(1) of the act, any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year I.T.A No. 595, 596 & 597/Ahd/2020 A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11 Page No 10 Shri Piyush M. Dobariya vs. ITO & Ors. shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains" with certain conditions and exemptions

SHRI BALKRISHNA P.TRIVEDI,HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT-III,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Roy

capital gain deposit scheme’ on same stipulations and claims to have not diverted the money for the purposes other than specified under s.54B(2) of the Act. However, it is the admitted position that no evidence in this regard was filed before the AO to substantiate the assertions being made. The AO has accepted the claim without looking into this

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

ARUNABEN KAUSHIKKUMAR PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the order of ld

Bench: Or During The Course Of The Appellate Proceedings.”

46A of the I. T. Rule. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (A) may be set-aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored

THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SMT. ARUNABEN KAUSHIKKUMAR PATEL,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the order of ld

Bench: Or During The Course Of The Appellate Proceedings.”

46A of the I. T. Rule. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (A) may be set-aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored

POPULAR ESTATE MANAGEMENT LTD.,(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS PIONEER TECHNOPARK LTD),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2703/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13) Popular Estate Management The Dcit बनाम/ Ltd. Circle-3(1)(1) Vs. (Previously Known As Pioneer Ahmedabad Technopark Ltd.) 81, New York Tower – A Opp. Muktidham Derasar Sg Highway Thaltej Cross Road Ahmedabad -380 054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcm 0617 P .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Dhiren Shah & Shri Nupur Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Subhas Bain Cit-Dr

gain or business income in view of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of (i) Baroda Cement & Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT 158 ITR 636 (Guj.), (ii) CIT vs. Hiralal Manila I Mody 131 ITR 421 (Guj.), (ii) Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ashoka Marketing

SHRI GANPATBHAI JETHABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

46A. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ''Ld.Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. It is therefore, prayed that the order of the ''Ld.Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad may be set-aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored

THE ITO, WARD 14(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ANILKUMAR KANAIYALAL PATEL,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

46A and further erred in relying on the same in arriving at the finding of “bonafide mistake”. ITO vs. Anilkumar Kanaiyalal Patel Asst.Year –2009-10 iii. The ld.CIT (A) erred in arriving at factual finding of “bonafide mistake” when the facts on record including show-cause notice of the AO indicate malafides and clear intent to evade substantial

DIPAL PIYUSH PALKIWALA ,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee i

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.839/Ahd/2015 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.3462/Ahd/2016 { "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dipal Piyush Palkhiwala, Ito Ward-4(4) 27, Rivera Greens, 1St Floor, Vs Gokuldham Navjeevan Trust Building Sarkhej-Sanand Road, Sanathal, Ahmedabad-380014 Ahmedabad-382210 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Rita Dokania, Cit- Dr

section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act. 2. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred confirming the addition of Rs.23,00,000/- as capital gains in the hands of the appellant. ITA Nos839/Ahd/2015 & ITANo. 3462/Ahd/2016 Dipal Piyush Palkhiwala

DIPAL PIYUSH PALKIWALA ,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO,WARD-4(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee i

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.839/Ahd/2015 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.3462/Ahd/2016 { "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dipal Piyush Palkhiwala, Ito Ward-4(4) 27, Rivera Greens, 1St Floor, Vs Gokuldham Navjeevan Trust Building Sarkhej-Sanand Road, Sanathal, Ahmedabad-380014 Ahmedabad-382210 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Rita Dokania, Cit- Dr

section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act. 2. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred confirming the addition of Rs.23,00,000/- as capital gains in the hands of the appellant. ITA Nos839/Ahd/2015 & ITANo. 3462/Ahd/2016 Dipal Piyush Palkhiwala

KUM.KULSUM ABDULRAZAK BANGADIWALA,BARODA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3),, BARODA

In the result, we see no reason to interfere

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-आयकर अपील सं./ Ita.No.1802/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Mohmmad Afaque Abdulrazak Ito, Ward-5(1) Bangdiwala Baroda. Vs J.M. Villa, Killedar Kancha B/H. Mes Girls School Gendigate Baroda 390 001 Pan : Avvpb 8654 P आयकर अपील सं./ Ita.No.2036/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Kum. Kulsum Abdulrazak Ito, Ward-5(3) Baroda. Bangdiwala Vs J.M. Villa, Killedar Kancha B/H. Mes Girls School Gendigate Baroda 390 001 Pan : Aylpb 8030 A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. Kinjal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dilip Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/02/2020 आदेश/O R D E R

capital gain and non-furnishing of complete details during the assessment proceedings, and thereafter filing of an application under Rule 46A before first appellate authority for production of additional evidence. Additional evidence was taken on record. Remand report was called for, and thereafter the ld.CIT(A) adjudicated the appeal in the case of Mohammad Afaque Abdulrazak Bangdiwala. This order

MOHMMAD AFAQUE ABDULRAZAK BANGDIWALA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1),, BARODA

In the result, we see no reason to interfere

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-आयकर अपील सं./ Ita.No.1802/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Mohmmad Afaque Abdulrazak Ito, Ward-5(1) Bangdiwala Baroda. Vs J.M. Villa, Killedar Kancha B/H. Mes Girls School Gendigate Baroda 390 001 Pan : Avvpb 8654 P आयकर अपील सं./ Ita.No.2036/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Kum. Kulsum Abdulrazak Ito, Ward-5(3) Baroda. Bangdiwala Vs J.M. Villa, Killedar Kancha B/H. Mes Girls School Gendigate Baroda 390 001 Pan : Aylpb 8030 A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. Kinjal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dilip Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/02/2020 आदेश/O R D E R

capital gain and non-furnishing of complete details during the assessment proceedings, and thereafter filing of an application under Rule 46A before first appellate authority for production of additional evidence. Additional evidence was taken on record. Remand report was called for, and thereafter the ld.CIT(A) adjudicated the appeal in the case of Mohammad Afaque Abdulrazak Bangdiwala. This order

THE TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 907/Ahd/2012 2007-08 M/S. Torrent Add. Cit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Range – 8, Torrent House, Off. Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aaact 5456 A 2. 938/Ahd/2012 2007-08 The Acit, M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. 3. 1634/Ahd/2012 2008-09 M/S. Torrent The Acit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad Ahmedabad. 4. 1725/Ahd/2012 2008-09 The Acit M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad.

46A and allowing the deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in part. 35. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the Revenue has already been adjudicated by us along with the ground no. 2 of the appeal of the assessee AYs :2007-08 & 2008-09 in ITA No. 907/AHD/2012 vide paragraph number 15 of this

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. THE TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 907/Ahd/2012 2007-08 M/S. Torrent Add. Cit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Range – 8, Torrent House, Off. Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aaact 5456 A 2. 938/Ahd/2012 2007-08 The Acit, M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. 3. 1634/Ahd/2012 2008-09 M/S. Torrent The Acit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad Ahmedabad. 4. 1725/Ahd/2012 2008-09 The Acit M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad.

46A and allowing the deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in part. 35. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the Revenue has already been adjudicated by us along with the ground no. 2 of the appeal of the assessee AYs :2007-08 & 2008-09 in ITA No. 907/AHD/2012 vide paragraph number 15 of this

THE ACIT,(OSD)CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. THE TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 907/Ahd/2012 2007-08 M/S. Torrent Add. Cit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Range – 8, Torrent House, Off. Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aaact 5456 A 2. 938/Ahd/2012 2007-08 The Acit, M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. 3. 1634/Ahd/2012 2008-09 M/S. Torrent The Acit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad Ahmedabad. 4. 1725/Ahd/2012 2008-09 The Acit M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad.

46A and allowing the deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in part. 35. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the Revenue has already been adjudicated by us along with the ground no. 2 of the appeal of the assessee AYs :2007-08 & 2008-09 in ITA No. 907/AHD/2012 vide paragraph number 15 of this

THE TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDITIONAL CIT, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 907/Ahd/2012 2007-08 M/S. Torrent Add. Cit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Range – 8, Torrent House, Off. Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aaact 5456 A 2. 938/Ahd/2012 2007-08 The Acit, M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. 3. 1634/Ahd/2012 2008-09 M/S. Torrent The Acit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad Ahmedabad. 4. 1725/Ahd/2012 2008-09 The Acit M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad.

46A and allowing the deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in part. 35. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the Revenue has already been adjudicated by us along with the ground no. 2 of the appeal of the assessee AYs :2007-08 & 2008-09 in ITA No. 907/AHD/2012 vide paragraph number 15 of this

SOHAM NITINBHAI BHADIYADRA,BOTAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1), BHAVNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2018-19

Capital Gain Report were filed before the CIT(A) along with a petition under Rule 46A. The Acknowledgment of submissions before Commissioner appeal is attached here with this submission in Annexure A The Ld CIT(A) without calling for a remand report or seeking clarification under section

SHRI ISHWARBHAI V. DESAI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

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. 1316/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 2 Ishwarbhai V. Desai vs. ITO “1.1 The order passed u/s.250 on 03.03.2017 for A.Y.2012-13 by CIT(A)-10, Abad upholding the additions aggregating to Rs.69,20,161 /- made