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#।]

Capital Gain under section 45 of the Act being sale consideration and hence provisions of section 69A rws 115BBE of the Act cannot

GUNVANTBHAI NARANDAS PATEL,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, GANDHINAGAR

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

capital gain. Therefore, the amount is liable to be added under deeming provision of 69A. Section 69A reads as under

HIRAL TAPANKUMAR CHUDGAR,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

capital gain under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in relation to the security transaction in Kushal Ltd. The A.O. erroneously

KISHORI PANKAJ AGARWAL,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , VADODARA, GUJARAT

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA (Accountant Member)

capital gains on shares under section 10(38) - Assessing Officer rejected assessee's plea and made additions under sections 68 and 69 by relying on statements from 'entry operators' On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) accepted assessee's claim, noting that shares were purchased via Account Payee Cheques, held in a Demat Account for over 12 months, and sold through a recognized

LALITA RAMNIRANJAN AGARWAL,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri TR Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nAnd Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member\nITA No. 662/Ahd/2023\nAssessment Year 2015-16\nLalita Ramniranjan Agarwal,\nB-201, Sandal Wood\nResidency, Urmi Char Rasta\nProductivity Road,\nVadodara-390020\nPAN: AECPA0173J\n(Appellant)\nThe ITO,\nWard-1(2)(4),\nVadodara\nVs\n(Respondent)\nAssessee by: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, A.R.\nRevenue by: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr. D.R.\nDate of hearing\n: 24-02-2025\nDate of pronouncement : 28-02-2025\nORD

capital gains on\nshares under section 10(38) - Assessing Officer rejected assessee's plea and\nmade additions under sections 68 and 69 by relying on statements from\n'entry operators' On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) accepted assessee's\nclaim, noting that shares were purchased via Account Payee Cheques,\nheld in a Demat Account for over 12 months, and sold through

NITABEN GIRISHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, while upholding the validity of reopening, we set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) on merits and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication in accordance with law

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Nitaben Girishbhai Patel The Ito, Ward-3(3)(2) 33/B, Swi Park, Private Plot Vejalpur Madhuvrund Society Ahmedabad. Ghatlodiya, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aappp 5738 F (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Assessee By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

capital gain is an outcome of purchase and sale transactions, and, by its very nature, such transactions are capable of being arranged in a manner to generate accommodation entries or colourable gains. The Assessing Officer, therefore, had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. The contention of the assessee that the addition ultimately made was not in exact conformity

HIRAL TAPANKUMAR CHUDGAR,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And\nShri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Accountant Member\nITA Nos 43 & 44/Ahd/2025\nAssessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19\nHiral Tapankumar\nChudgar\n201/A, Premdarshan,\nBehind Jay Ambe School,\nSamasavli Raod, Vemali,\nVadodara-390008,\nGujarat\nPAN: ANCPC4000H\n(Appellant)\nIncome Tax Officer\nWard-1(3)(1),\nVs Vadodara\n(Respondent)\nAssessee Represented:\nShri Deepak Shah, A.R.\nRevenue Represented:\nShri Abhijit, Sr.D.R.\nDate of hearing\n: 18-06-

Section 10(38) and in\nmaking an addition of Rs.29,55,558/-as long-term capital gain under\nSection 69A

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

capital gain which is totally contrary to the facts on record, which goes to prove that the Assessing Officer has not examined the income-tax return which is a primary document to be examined before issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Hence, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer suffers from latches and devoid of due diligence. Hence

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

capital gain which is totally contrary to the facts on record, which goes to prove that the Assessing Officer has not examined the income-tax return which is a primary document to be examined before issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Hence, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer suffers from latches and devoid of due diligence. Hence

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SANJAY PRATAPRAI MEHTA, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

capital gain earned by the assessee cannot be held bogus merely DCIT vs. Sanjay Prataprai Mehta Asst.Year –2014-15 - 8– based on some report/ finding unearthed in case of third party/parties in the given facts and circumstances unless cogent material is brought against particular assessee on record. Therefore, we hereby set aside the finding of the learned

SURESH KANTILAL THAKKAR,BANASKANTHA vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed and the Assessing

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

capital gain of Rs. 18,77,191/-. On perusal of the assessment records, PCIT observed that the Assessing Officer failed to analyze the documents to verify the genuineness of the transaction. The Assessing Officer completely failed to take into cognizance the fact of the assessee was involved in trading in penny / bogus stocks as per the information basis which case

KARTIK CLOTHING & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 69A of the Act. Further, it was submitted that it is a well settled law that denial of opportunity of cross examination also renders the assessment order bad in law. 6. In response, the Ld. DR placed reliance on the observations made by the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(Appeals) in their respective orders. 7. We have heard

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

69A of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed (not allowed) the appeal of the assessee. 5. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee but a written submission was filed by the assessee which was received

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(2)(1) AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAWAN VEJALPUR AHMEDABAD vs. RAMANBHAI JAGABHAI BHARWAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 69A of the Act, the assessee submitted that the AO acted merely on presumptions, without properly evaluating the replies and supporting documents filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee submitted that contrary to the AO’s assertion that the assessee failed to explain the source of funds, the assessee had furnished detailed evidence including

MANISHKUMAR RAMLAKHAN AGRAWAL,AHMEDABAD vs. WARD 6(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, impugned notice is quashed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

69A of the Act being genuine sale consideration received as unexplained money and declared as Long Term Capital Gain in return. 2. Learned CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact upholding the issue of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 56,48,229/- u/s. 10(38) of the Act as accommodation entry on sale of shares

USHABEN MAGANBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(5) NOW WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 69A of the Act as unexplained cash deposits in bank account. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.82,95,844/- as long-term capital gain

MANISH RANJAN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MONARCH NETWORTH CAPITAL LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue for A.Y. 2015–16 is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Capital Ltd. Central Circle-1(1) 901/902, Atlanta Ahmedabad – 380 Centre 009 Sonawala Lane Opp. Udhyog Bha Goregaon East Mumbai – 400 (Revenue) 063 (Assessee ) PAN: AAACN 1184 F 2. ITA 2014-15 -do- -do- 961/Ahd/2024 3. ITA -do- -do- 962/Ahd/2024 4. 2015-16 By Assessee By Revenue CO 14/Ahd/2024 (in ITA 960/Ahd/2024) 5. CO 2013-14 By Assessee By Revenue

THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(12),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI CAWAS DARASHA KARAKA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT\nMS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nI.T.A. No. 499/Ahd/2018\n(Assessment Year: 2013-14)\nIncome-Tax Officer,\nWard-3(3)(12),\nAhmedabad\n(Appellant)\nVs.\nLate Shri Cawas Darasha\nKaraka, Legal Heir M/s.\nCawas Karaka Trust,\n22, Teen Murti Bungalows,\nNr. Devang Bungalows,\nThaltej, Ahmedabad-380054\n[PAN : AGSPK 9616 L]\n(Respondent)\nAppellant by :\nShri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &\nShri Parimalsinh H. Parmar, ARs\nRespondent by:\nAdjournment applica

section\n55(2)(a)(ii) of the Act.\nITA No. 499/Ahd/2018\nITO Vs. Shri Cawas Darasha Karaka\nAsst. Year: 2013-14\n-2-\n2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition\nu/s 69A made by the A.O. of Rs.61,32,000/- without appreciating the\nfact that the assessee had not furnished any evidences