THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI KAILASH RAMAVATAR GOENKA, AHMEDABAD

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

7,45,07,478 14,46,47,732 1,94,62,000 payments Total Assessed 5 25,67,83,317 39,25,26,792 86,11,44,005 45,66,39,878 Income 6 Rounded off 25,67,83,320 39,25,26,790 86,11,44,000 45,66,39,880 IT(SS)A No.1/Ahd/2023 Kailash Ramavatar Goenka

JCIT(OSD), CIR-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE (INDIA) LTD, HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

94,28,649/-, against the returned income of Rs.27,56,70,614/-, by making various additions/disallowances of Rs.13,19,12,485/- as capital gains under normal provisions of the Act and Rs.129,12,24,408/- as book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee has filed appeal before

RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA PVT. LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA LTD.,),HARYANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

94,28,649/-, against the returned income of Rs.27,56,70,614/-, by making various additions/disallowances of Rs.13,19,12,485/- as capital gains under normal provisions of the Act and Rs.129,12,24,408/- as book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee has filed appeal before

SHRI KIRANKUMAR RASIKLAL SANGHVI,DEESA vs. THE PR.CIT-4,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi, The Principal Commissioner Of 1, Paras Society, Neminathnagar Income-Tax-4, Vs. Road, Deesa, Gujarat-385535 Ahmedabad Pan : Afops 0131 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri Durga Dutt, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-4, Ahmedabad [Herein- After Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 03.03.2020, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Noted The Present Appeal To Be Barred By Limitation By 1355 Days. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Explained That There Was, In Fact, No Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal For The Reason That The Assessee Had Inadvertently Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit Before The Surat Bench Of The Itat Which, When The Appeal Came Up For Hearing Before It, Passed A Judicial Order Dated 21.11.2023 Dismissing The Appeal As Withdrawn, Noting The Fact That The Correct Jurisdiction Lay With The 2 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi Vs. Pcit Ay : 2015-16

capital gain Rs.5,74,66,137/- 7. Thus, in effect, the Ld. PCIT has, on merits, given a finding that two properties as noted above qualified as residential houses in terms of Section 54F of the Act, disentitling the claim of exemption/deduction of the assessee u/s 54F of the Act. Having said so, we find that there is no basis

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. DEVAL PRANAV PATEL L/H. OF LATE SHRI PRANAV MAHENDRABHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2017-18

94,349/- under Section 69C of the Act is also not justifiable by deleting the same. The Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer has rightly made the addition as the assessee could not give the details about the genuineness of the trading of shares of Kushal Group of Companies and manipulated the scrips to generate bogus long term capital

SANJAYKUMAR RAMESHBHAI MALI,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(5), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2012-13

Section does not apply and therefore Interest of Rs.38,874/-be deleted. It is therefore submitted that relief claimed above be allowed and the order of the Assessing Officer be modified accordingly Your Appellant reserves right to add, alter, amend to withdraw any or all Grounds of Appeal.” 3. The assessee has filed his return of income for assessment year

UNIMED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2016-17 Unimed Technologies Limited Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Survey No.22 & 22, Vs. Vadodara. Baska, Ujeti Halol Panchmahal Pan : Aaace 4022 B Asstt.Year : 2016-17 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Unimed Technologies Limited Vadodara. Vs. Survey No.22 & 22, Baska, Ujeti Halol Panchmahal Pan : Aaace 4022 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Assessee By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

94,75,390/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated on various additions. In the course of assessment proceedings, a separate penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(b) was also initiated for alleged non-compliance with statutory notices. The Assessing Officer, vide penalty order dated 18.12.2018, levied a penalty of Rs.20,000/- under section

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

94,043/- chargeable to tax for the AY 2018-19 has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 10. The records reveal that the assessee had Long Term Capital Gains of Rs. 5,59,550/- which have been reflected in the income-tax return. The entire details of the Long-Term Capital Gains

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

94,043/- chargeable to tax for the AY 2018-19 has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 10. The records reveal that the assessee had Long Term Capital Gains of Rs. 5,59,550/- which have been reflected in the income-tax return. The entire details of the Long-Term Capital Gains

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, RACE COURSE vs. UNIMED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, HALOL

Accordingly dismissed.\n18.9 Based on the findings and conclusions set out hereinabove, the\nappeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by\nthe assessee is partly allowed

94,75,390/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also\ninitiated on various additions. In the course of assessment proceedings, a\nseparate penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(b) was also initiated for\nalleged non-compliance with statutory notices. The Assessing Officer, vide\npenalty order dated 18.12.2018, levied a penalty of Rs.20,000/- under\nsection

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

94,300/-. In the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs.538.40 Crores under Section 68 of the Act in respect of sale consideration of shares of e-infochips Limited. Further, the Assessing Officer had also denied exemption under Section 11 and 12 of the Act as claimed by the assessee. 3. Aggrieved with the order

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

94,000/- only. 20. On appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(C) of the Act. 21. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 22. The learned AR before us submitted that the revenue has not unearthed any document

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

94,000/- only. 20. On appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(C) of the Act. 21. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 22. The learned AR before us submitted that the revenue has not unearthed any document

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

94,000/- only. 20. On appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(C) of the Act. 21. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 22. The learned AR before us submitted that the revenue has not unearthed any document

RAJESH BALVANTRAI BRAHMBHATT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT(CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

7. The appellant respectfully submits that the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Ld. AO are not applicable, as the facts of the appellant's case are distinguishable. The Ld. AO conducted extensive inquiries by issuing notices under section 142(1), making the order under section 143(3) read with section 153C, along with the approval by the Addl

RAJESH BALVANTRAI BRAHMBHATT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT(CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

7. The appellant respectfully submits that the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Ld. AO are not applicable, as the facts of the appellant's case are distinguishable. The Ld. AO conducted extensive inquiries by issuing notices under section 142(1), making the order under section 143(3) read with section 153C, along with the approval by the Addl

NIKSHAL POPERTIES PVT. LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumaray Sl.

Section 68 of the Act. ITA Nos. 2785 & 2812/Ahd/2017 5 Cross Appeals : Ardor Overseas Pvt Ltd VS. DCIT and ITA No.206Ahd/2018- Nikshal Properties Pvt Ltd. AY : 2014-15 However, noting that he had already affected the adjustment to the cost of land acquired by the assessee by reducing it by Rs.36 crores odd, he added the balance amount of Rs.8

ITO, WARD-1(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ARDOR OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumaray Sl.

Section 68 of the Act. ITA Nos. 2785 & 2812/Ahd/2017 5 Cross Appeals : Ardor Overseas Pvt Ltd VS. DCIT and ITA No.206Ahd/2018- Nikshal Properties Pvt Ltd. AY : 2014-15 However, noting that he had already affected the adjustment to the cost of land acquired by the assessee by reducing it by Rs.36 crores odd, he added the balance amount of Rs.8