DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCE LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

84,012/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act since the same was deposited beyond the statutory due date, relying on the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court ruling in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and subsequent amendments brought by Finance Act 2021 which clarified that section 43B relief is not available for employees’ contribution deposited beyond due date

DCIE CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHEMDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

84,012/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act since the same was deposited beyond the statutory due date, relying on the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court ruling in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and subsequent amendments brought by Finance Act 2021 which clarified that section 43B relief is not available for employees’ contribution deposited beyond due date

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

84,012/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act since the same was deposited beyond the statutory due date, relying on the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court ruling in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and subsequent amendments brought by Finance Act 2021 which clarified that section 43B relief is not available for employees’ contribution deposited beyond due date

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

84,012/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act since the same was deposited beyond the statutory due date, relying on the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court ruling in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and subsequent amendments brought by Finance Act 2021 which clarified that section 43B relief is not available for employees’ contribution deposited beyond due date

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION - THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

84,012/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act since the same was deposited beyond the statutory due date, relying on the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court ruling in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and subsequent amendments brought by Finance Act 2021 which clarified that section 43B relief is not available for employees’ contribution deposited beyond due date

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

84,012/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act since the same was deposited beyond the statutory due date, relying on the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court ruling in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and subsequent amendments brought by Finance Act 2021 which clarified that section 43B relief is not available for employees’ contribution deposited beyond due date

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT , BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed

84,012/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act since the same was deposited\nbeyond the statutory due date, relying on the jurisdictional Gujarat High\nCourt ruling in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and subsequent\namendments brought by Finance Act 2021 which clarified that section 43B\nrelief is not available for employees' contribution deposited beyond due date.\nThe

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed

84,012/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act since the same was deposited\nbeyond the statutory due date, relying on the jurisdictional Gujarat High\nCourt ruling in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and subsequent\namendments brought by Finance Act 2021 which clarified that section 43B\nrelief is not available for employees' contribution deposited beyond due date.\nThe

HARSHADKUMAR HARGOVANDAS PATEL,KALOL vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

Capital Gain (LTCG) after making certain\ndisallowances.\n3.1 The dispute was with respect to the fair market value (FMV) of the\nland as on 01.04.1981. The assessee had adopted the value of Rs.72,84,500/-\nbased on a registered valuer's report and claimed an indexed cost of\nacquisition of Rs.6,20,63,940/-. However, the Assessing Officer, being\ndissatisfied

SANDEEP MOHANRAJ SINGHI,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE4(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

capital gain arising on sale of shares was duly disclosed by the assessee in its return and deduction under Section 11(1A) of the Act was claimed, as eligible to the assessee. He submitted that this was not the case of any loan or share application money, the creditworthiness or genuineness of which was required to be established

SHRI NEERAV SHAILESH PAREKH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09

84. d) Eldeco Infrastructure & Properties Limited (2012) 23 Taxmann.com 17 (Delhi) 6. The Ld. AR further submitted that Section 50CA is the Section which allows the Assessing Officer to substitute the sale consideration with respect to the transfer of unquoted shares but the said Section has been inserted by Finance Act 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2018 only. At the relevant point

DR K R SHROFF FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\n\n29

capital gain arising on sale of shares\nwas duly disclosed by the assessee in its return and deduction under\nSection 11(1A) of the Act was claimed, as eligible to the assessee. He\nsubmitted that this was not the case of any loan or share application\nmoney, the creditworthiness or genuineness of which was required to be\nestablished

ACIT (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. DR K R SHROFF FOUNDATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\n\n29

capital gain arising on sale of shares\nwas duly disclosed by the assessee in its return and deduction under\nSection 11(1A) of the Act was claimed, as eligible to the assessee. He\nsubmitted that this was not the case of any loan or share application\nmoney, the creditworthiness or genuineness of which was required to be\nestablished

BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA, (L/H OF LATE BHAGWATSINH J CHAVDA),AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

84,000/- and added the same as income from house property in the hands of the assessee. Further, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 23,032/- u/s. 24(b) of the Act in respect of interest on borrowed capital, however, the same was disallowed by the Assessing Officer since the assessee did not furnish

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI RANCHHODBHAI MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

84,000/- and added the same as income from house property in the hands of the assessee. Further, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 23,032/- u/s. 24(b) of the Act in respect of interest on borrowed capital, however, the same was disallowed by the Assessing Officer since the assessee did not furnish

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI R. MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

84,000/- and added the same as income from house property in the hands of the assessee. Further, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 23,032/- u/s. 24(b) of the Act in respect of interest on borrowed capital, however, the same was disallowed by the Assessing Officer since the assessee did not furnish

LATE BHAGWATSINH JIBHUBHAI CHAVDA)L/H.BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

84,000/- and added the same as income from house property in the hands of the assessee. Further, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 23,032/- u/s. 24(b) of the Act in respect of interest on borrowed capital, however, the same was disallowed by the Assessing Officer since the assessee did not furnish

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.

capital gains from the said transactions. He has clearly admitted that he himself was involved in synchronized trading as per the instructions of Shirish Shah in the shares of the BSE listed companies managed by Shri Shirish Chandra Shah. These facts have also been accepted by Shri Shirish Chandra Shah. He has specifically stated that synchronized trading was resorted