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

SANDIP B. PADSALA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) For Adjudication. 3. The Ld. Pr Cit Erred On Facts & In Law In Holding That The Assessing Officer Erred In Granting Deduction Of Interest Of Rs. 11,70,726/- Without Appreciating That The Appellant Had Not Claimed Deduction Of The Same While Preparing Return Of Income. The Appellant Craves Permission To Add, Alter, Amend Or Withdraw Any Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal Either Before Or During The Course Of Rearing Of The Appeal.”

69C being treated separately, because such deemed income is not income from salary, house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from 'other sources' because the provisions of sections

SHRI YAGNESH D VYAS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(5),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh) [Through Virtual Court]

capital gain of Rs 22,88,832/- was offered in return of income filed u/s 139(1) though the property was not transferred during the year under consideration. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend and/or alter the ground or grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 2. Brief facts

SHRI TEJAS ARVINDBHAI RAVAL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (OSD) WARD-7(1), NOW WARD-3(3)(5),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 336/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Shri Tejas Arvindbhai Raval, Ito(Osd), बनाम/ 803, Anand Hari Tower, Ward – 7(1), Vs. Opp. Chanakya Tower Ahmedabad. Bodakdev, Ahmedabad – 380 015. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afupr 7933 J .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri S.N. Divatia, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri N. J. Vyas, Sr. D.R.

section it must be conclusively established by evidence or material to prove that the amount spent is an expenditure and the expenditure is incurred by the assessee only and the same is not deductible while computing the income under any head under the Act. Thus, the primary onus is on the revenue.” As the activity of the assessee with Reliance

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-9,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. BHAILALBHAI A.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

gains of business shall be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in sections 30 to 43D. Section 40 provides for certain disallowances in certain cases notwithstanding that those amounts are allowed generally under other sections. The computation under section 29 is to be made under section 145 on the basis of the books regularly maintained by the assessee

THE ITO, WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. BHAILALBHAI A.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

gains of business shall be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in sections 30 to 43D. Section 40 provides for certain disallowances in certain cases notwithstanding that those amounts are allowed generally under other sections. The computation under section 29 is to be made under section 145 on the basis of the books regularly maintained by the assessee

GHANSHYAMBHAI KANUBHAI DESAI,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain has been made under the provisions of section 45(3) of the Act, representing the such addition during the assessment proceedings being deemed income does not automatically attract the penalty provisions as envisaged under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As such, the onus, in the case of deemed income as specified under section

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

M/S GREENWELL ORCHARDS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-3 , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

69C of the Act vide reassessment order dated 18-08-2017. I.T.A No. 695/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No 5 M/s. Greenwell Orchards vs. Pr.CIT 7. As against this the reassessment order the Ld PCIT issued a show cause notice dated 21-01-2019 on the ground that the reassessment order passed by the assessing officer is without conducting suitable

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