SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

undisclosed capital gain on Land Block No. 325 & 485A respectively which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts that that relevant capital gain of survey no. 485 has been declared in return of income

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

undisclosed capital gain on Land Block No. 325 & 485A respectively which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts that that relevant capital gain of survey no. 485 has been declared in return of income

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

undisclosed capital gain on Land Block No. 325 & 485A respectively which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts that that relevant capital gain of survey no. 485 has been declared in return of income

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

undisclosed capital gain on Land Block No. 325 & 485A respectively which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts that that relevant capital gain of survey no. 485 has been declared in return of income

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

undisclosed capital gain on Land Block No. 325 & 485A respectively which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts that that relevant capital gain of survey no. 485 has been declared in return of income

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

undisclosed capital gain on Land Block No. 325 & 485A respectively which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts that that relevant capital gain of survey no. 485 has been declared in return of income

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

undisclosed capital gain on Land Block No. 325 & 485A respectively which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts that that relevant capital gain of survey no. 485 has been declared in return of income

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

undisclosed income as Long term Capital gain. The High Court made the following observations: The authorities found that the assessee

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

undisclosed income as Long term Capital gain. The High Court made the following observations: The authorities found that the assessee

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

undisclosed income as Long term Capital gain. The High Court made the following observations: The authorities found that the assessee

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

income is taxed, in line with the statutory provisions and the principles of equity and justice. 13.2. On the specific issue of indexation benefit, we agree with the assessee’s contention that once the capital gains arising from the transfer of the asset are accepted, its computational mechanism, including the benefit of indexation, must also be adopted in accordance with

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI MAHESH SOMABHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

income of Rs.4,71,380/-. The return was taken up for scrutiny assessment and made an addition of Rs.1,09,67,348/- being bogus Long Term Capital gain on sale of penny stock scrip. 4. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee purchased 13000 shares

SHRI NAVINCHANDRA N. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Undisclosed investment u/s 69B of the Act - Rs. 1,62,05,500/- (iii) Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - Rs. 7,05,466/- 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed all the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved

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.

Capital gains) - Assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 - Whether where land sold by assessee was held to be non-agricultural land, and, thus, was not exempt from tax and assessee was consciously aware of real position and knowingly furnished inaccurate particulars of income in return that land sold was an agricultural land, there was willful concealment and, thus, penalty

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.

Capital gains) - Assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 - Whether where land sold by assessee was held to be non-agricultural land, and, thus, was not exempt from tax and assessee was consciously aware of real position and knowingly furnished inaccurate particulars of income in return that land sold was an agricultural land, there was willful concealment and, thus, penalty

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.

Capital gains) - Assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 - Whether where land sold by assessee was held to be non-agricultural land, and, thus, was not exempt from tax and assessee was consciously aware of real position and knowingly furnished inaccurate particulars of income in return that land sold was an agricultural land, there was willful concealment and, thus, penalty

THAKORBHAI MAGANBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD- 3(1)(1), VADODARA

income and that objections\nwere not disposed of by a separate speaking order. On merits, the assessee\ncontended that the land sold was agricultural land and not a capital asset, that\ncapital gains could not be taxed in A.Y. 2008-09 as substantial consideration\nwas received in subsequent years, that the land was an ancestral property and\nhence a long

ACIT CC 2(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. AISHA DHIRAJ GOGIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result: 50. To summarize the final outcome:

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha["ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" एवं "ी नरे" साद िस!ा, लेखा सद" के सम#।]

Undisclosed investment on account of alleged on-money payments in various real estate projects, including the Nana Chiloda Project, the Stellar Project, and Sumel Business Park; (ii) Addition on account of alleged under-invoicing of sales; (iii) Disallowance of exemption claimed on Long Term Capital Gains under section 10(38) of the Act, treating the underlying shares as "penny stocks