SHAILESH S. JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are separately initiated concealment of income. [Addition: Rs. 1,52,20,891/-]” 7. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the additions made by the Ld. Assessing Officer. Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that during search and survey proceedings, evidence showed that 212 companies were managed by Shirish Shah from his office, which

SHAILESH SUBODHCHANDRA JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are separately initiated concealment of income. [Addition: Rs. 1,52,20,891/-]” 7. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the additions made by the Ld. Assessing Officer. Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that during search and survey proceedings, evidence showed that 212 companies were managed by Shirish Shah from his office, which

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

133A – Statements & - Statement of assessee 12/13.02.2019 (B- Voluntary recorded u/s. 131 on Safal Group) Disclosure 13.02.2019. - Group disclosed Rs.50.03 crore as additional income. - Assessee’s share: Rs.1.04 crore (A.Y. 2018- 19) and Rs. 2.30 crore (A.Y. 2019-20). Search u/s. 132 – Loose Papers & - Negotiation papers for 15.10.2019 (Land Digital Data sale of Makarba land Broker & Financier (Vol. XI – pages parcels

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

133A – Statements & - Statement of assessee 12/13.02.2019 (B- Voluntary recorded u/s. 131 on Safal Group) Disclosure 13.02.2019. - Group disclosed Rs.50.03 crore as additional income. - Assessee’s share: Rs.1.04 crore (A.Y. 2018- 19) and Rs. 2.30 crore (A.Y. 2019-20). Search u/s. 132 – Loose Papers & - Negotiation papers for 15.10.2019 (Land Digital Data sale of Makarba land Broker & Financier (Vol. XI – pages parcels

DEVENDRA NARENDRABHAI THAKKER,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 762/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Devendra Narendrabhai Acit, बनाम/ Thakker, Cir – 5(2), Vs. C/O Maffick Logistics, 228, Ahmedabad. Akshar Arcade, Opp. Memnagar Fire Station, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-14 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abfpt 6354 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Jyotish M. Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr.D.R.

capital gain should arise transfer of land used for the purpose of business situated in a Urban Area and the assessee has within a period of one years or 3 years of Devendra Narendrabhai Thakker vs. ACIT Asst.Year –2011-12 transfer purchased / achieved land or building for the purpose of his business, in a Non Urban Area. In this case

OVEZ ARIFBHAI LAKHANI,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Benches, Has Arisen From The Revisionary Order Dated 12.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Principal

capital gain on the sale/purchase of shares, and the same was exempt u/s. 10(38). It was submitted that ld PCIT has observed during revisionary proceedings that the AO did not call for and verify the demat account. It was submitted that the demat account was duly submitted before the ld. PCIT during the course of revisionary proceedings u/s

SHRI HASMUKHBHAI PRAJAPATI,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

133A of the act was carried out on 18th October, 2010 wherein the assessee had admitted that his activities of investment in land was of the business nature.Therefore, the assessing officer observed that the assessee was liable for audit u/s. 44AB of the act and issued a notice u/s. 271B of the act on 27th Feb, 2013 for not furnishing

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD vs. JASMINE JAYANTIBHAI SANGHAVI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kambleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1779/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) बनाम/ Income-Tax Officer Jasmine Jayantibhai Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad Sanghavi Vs. 7-F, Swetal Flat, Khanpur Bai Centre, Khanpur, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 380001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aqcps1433R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ar Date Of Hearing 01/12/2025 02/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R The Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 08.08.2025 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Filed By The Revenue Are As Under:

survey u/s 133A, constituted sufficient "tangible material" for the formation of a bona fide belief that income had escaped assessment?" ITA No. 1779/Ahd/2025 (ITO vs. Jasmine Jayantibhai Sanghavi) A.Y.– 2016-17 - 2 – 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made of Rs.1

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

u/s 142(1)\ndated 02.05.2022 and 28.04.2023, wherein the assessee was\nconfronted with the seized images and documents recovered from the\nmobile phone of Shri Suresh Ranchhodbhai Thakkar. The assessee\nhad duly furnished detailed replies along with documentary evidence\nin response to these queries.\n3.7 The AR emphasised that the show-cause notice of the PCIT\nreproduced in extenso

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

u/s 142(1)\ndated 02.05.2022 and 28.04.2023, wherein the assessee was\nconfronted with the seized images and documents recovered from the\nmobile phone of Shri Suresh Ranchhodbhai Thakkar. The assessee\nhad duly furnished detailed replies along with documentary evidence\nin response to these queries.\n3.7 The AR emphasised that the show-cause notice of the PCIT\nreproduced in extenso

SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 20(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

gains of business'. (b) The learned CIT (A) also erred in not appreciating that all the above receipts/incomes are arising from business activities and hence derived from the business of industrial undertaking.” 2. The first issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowances of deduction under section 80IA

SHRI VITTHALBHAI MADHAVLAL PATEL,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Capital Gain and Interest Income. For the Asst. Year 2013-14, assessee filed its Return of Income on 28.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.4,68,76,340/-. There was a survey action u/s. 133A

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI VITTHALBHAI MADHAVLAL PATEL,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Capital Gain and Interest Income. For the Asst. Year 2013-14, assessee filed its Return of Income on 28.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.4,68,76,340/-. There was a survey action u/s. 133A

THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1)., AHMEDABAD vs. N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

133A of the Act, and that the modus operandi adopted by NK Proteins and its clients was explained by him. The relevant para is para 7.6 of the order. The same is summarized as under:- I) NK Proteins is Member Broker on NSEL. II) NK Inds. being client of NK Proteins executes T+3 contract on the electronic platform

N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

133A of the Act, and that the modus operandi adopted by NK Proteins and its clients was explained by him. The relevant para is para 7.6 of the order. The same is summarized as under:- I) NK Proteins is Member Broker on NSEL. II) NK Inds. being client of NK Proteins executes T+3 contract on the electronic platform

N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

133A of the Act, and that the modus operandi adopted by NK Proteins and its clients was explained by him. The relevant para is para 7.6 of the order. The same is summarized as under:- I) NK Proteins is Member Broker on NSEL. II) NK Inds. being client of NK Proteins executes T+3 contract on the electronic platform

THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1)., AHMEDABAD vs. N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

133A of the Act, and that the modus operandi adopted by NK Proteins and its clients was explained by him. The relevant para is para 7.6 of the order. The same is summarized as under:- I) NK Proteins is Member Broker on NSEL. II) NK Inds. being client of NK Proteins executes T+3 contract on the electronic platform

SHRI JITENDRA P.VAGHELA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(3), AHMEDABAD

133A was conducted in case of Amarsingh Ramubhai 12/12/2011 Solanki 4. Return Filled against the Notice U/s 148 of the IT. Act, 1961 31/03/2012 5. Time limit for completion of Assessment U/s 1 53(1 )(a) 31/03/2012 6. Time limit for completion of Assessment U/s 153(1)(b) 31/03/2013 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further relied on the decision