ISMAIL ABDULAZIZ LAKHANI,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: the same were transferred through registered broker, on the floor of the recognized stock exchange, after suffering Security Transaction Tax and ultimately settled through proper banking channel) as unaccounted income under Section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.1,51,12,000/-.

section 69C of the Act amounting to Rs.3,02,240/- to the income of the appellant. 5. Your Appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend and withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. The solitary issue in the present appeal relates to long capital gain

HASMUKH UGARCHAND GADHECHA, HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.591/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Hasmukh Ugarchand The Ito बनाम/ Gadhecha, Huf Ward-5(2)(2) V/S. 3Rd Floor, Anjalee House Ahmedabad – 380 015 Cg Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaahg 7194 K (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak R. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 26/12/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-2014. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Hasmukh Ugarchand Gadhecha, Huf Vs. Ito Asstt.Year : 2013-14 2 “1. That The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Law & In The Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Order Of The Ao In Reopening Assessment U/S.147 Of The Act.

69C of the Act. 5. The Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in not allowing an opportunity of cross examination of persons whose statements were relied upon and personal hearing before confirming addition U/S 68 of the Act 6. Your appellant craves for leave to add, amend or alter

ANKITA BRIJESH PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

Capital Gain and Rs.66,088/- under Section 69C of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee

RANJITSINH KANUBHAI RATHOD,KALOL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC PRESENT JURIDICTION THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Capital Gain. Thus, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 2,28,04,047/- under Section 69A of the Act and also Rs. 4,56,080/- being 2% of total receipt of the said amount under Section 69C

RANJITSINH KANUBHAI RATHOD,KALOL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT,NFAC PRESENT JURISDICTION THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Capital Gain. Thus, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 2,28,04,047/- under Section 69A of the Act and also Rs. 4,56,080/- being 2% of total receipt of the said amount under Section 69C

RANJITSINH KANUBHAI RATHOD,KALOL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC PRESENT JURIDICTION THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Capital Gain. Thus, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 2,28,04,047/- under Section 69A of the Act and also Rs. 4,56,080/- being 2% of total receipt of the said amount under Section 69C

SANJAY JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2014-2015 Sanjay Jayantilal Shah Ito, Ward-2(1)(1) 202/A, Shivalik 10 Vs. Vejalpur Opp: Sbi Zonal Office Ahmedabad. Ambawadi, Ahmedabad 380 015 Pan : Aktps 8891 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, Ars. : Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"], For The Assessment Year 2014–15, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 31.03.2022 Passed U/S 147 Read With Section 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Assessing Officer Or Ao"].

Capital Gain was not genuine. 2.5 Consequently, the Assessing Officer treated the amount of Rs.1,05,04,800/- being the sale consideration of shares as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act and further estimated cash commission at the rate of 5% of such accommodation entry, amounting to Rs. 5,25,240/-, as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C

SANA MD.SAQIB PUTHAWALA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2018-19. I.T.A No. 624/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 Page No 2 Sana Md. Saqib Puthawala. vs. ITO 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from other sources and capital gains

KAMLESH P SHAH (HUF),BHAVNAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHAVNAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.380/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Kamlesh P. Shah (Huf) The Assistant Commissioner बनाम/ C/O. Riddhi Tele - Of Income Tax V/S. Communication Ito Ward-1(2) Balkrishna Complex Bhavnagar Vora Bazar Bhavnagar – 364 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aahhk 6103 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sarju Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Waghe Prasadrao, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26 /02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27 /02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”]. Kamlesh P.Shah (HUF) vs. ACIT Asst. Year : 2016-17 2. The AO, in the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act, made an addition of Rs.93,84,364/- under Section 69A of the Act, treating the Long Term Capital Gain

SHREENATHJI ASSOCIATES,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 965/Ahd/2024 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Shreenathji Associates, D.C.I.T, Sb-1, Shreeji Avenue, Circle-1(2)(1), बिाम 11, Sampatrao Colony, Vadodara. Vs. Jetalpur Road, Vadodara-390015. Pan: Abufs4107P

Capital Gain) entries to various clients on receipt of cash. He was facilitating these entries through bigger accommodation entry provider Shirish Chandra Shah (SCS). 2.1 On verification of the assessee's particular of income, submissions filed by the assessee AO observed that accommodation entries to the assessee have been provided by SCS through his company named Prraneta Industries Ltd. amounting

ADITI THAPAR ,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for de- novo adjudication in the interest of justice

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

69C of the Act ignoring submission of the appellant. 6. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.7,16,500/- u/s 69A of the Act. 7. Charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C are unjustified. 8. Initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” 3. The brief facts of the case

PUNEET SINGH R. BHADOURIA,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(9), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs.37,24,760/- after a indexing the purchase cost as exempt in the return of income. The Assessing Officer observed that the shares of Turbotech Engineering Limited were purchased through Private placement (offline) through Vijay Bhagwandas & Co. The shares purchased were dematerialised on 29.05.2013 I.e. nearly after 25 months from the date of purchase

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. KAPIL ARUN AGRAWAL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.672/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Income Tax Officer Kapil Arun Agrawal बनाम/ Ward-3(3)(2) B-130 Pushp Industrial Park V/S. Ahmedabad Near Shital Cinema, Gomtipur Rakhial Ahmeabad – 390 021 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Agupa 1914 H (अपीलाथ)/ Appellant) (*+ यथ)/ Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ravindra, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/09/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

69C of IT Act, on technical grounds and without adjudicating the issue on merits, despite the fact that the assessee has availed accommodation entries in its books by trading in penny scripts. (d) The appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or to amend all or any the ground before the final hearing of the appeal.” 3. The brief facts

M/S. BODAL CHEMICALS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

gains derived by undertaking engaged in generation of steam amounting to Rs. 14,27,64,966/- by applying the provisions of Section 80-IA(7) of the Act and on the contention that the relevant Form 10CCB was not filed with the return of income. Additional Ground No. 1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant wishes

TOSIFBHAI TAJDIN HALANI,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Capital Gain 7,79,375/- Unexplained household expenditure u/s 69C 12,00,000/- 2.1. Thus the Assessing Officer determined the total income as Rs.1,35,80,660/-. 3. Aggrieved against the assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Though the assessee filed written submission however the Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee has not made necessary

SHAH BINIT CHANDRAVADAN, HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1198/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18)

section 148 of the Act on 30.03.2021 in response to which the assessee had filed return on 27.04.2021. The assessment was completed u/s 147 rws 144B of the Act at total income of Rs.3,29,68,810/-. The AO had made addition of Rs.3,04,73,424/- in respect of LTCG which was considered as accommodation entry. Another addition

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), AHMEDABAD vs. DYNAMATIC DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years: 2013-14

section 69C of the Act without appreciating the fact that President of Anand Rathi Commodities Ltd. in his statement himself accepted that client code modifications were systematically used to manipulate profits and losses. 3. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition

UPENDRA CHINUBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18. I.T.A No. 729/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 2 Upendra Chinubhai Shah. vs. ACIT 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual deriving income from Salary, house property, capital gain, business