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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

unexplained deposits in bank which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts that that relevant bank deposit has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee. And also the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.49,00,000 & Rs.1,89,43,840 on account of undisclosed capital

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

unexplained deposits in bank which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts that that relevant bank deposit has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee. And also the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.49,00,000 & Rs.1,89,43,840 on account of undisclosed capital

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

unexplained deposits in bank which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts that that relevant bank deposit has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee. And also the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.49,00,000 & Rs.1,89,43,840 on account of undisclosed capital

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

unexplained deposits in bank which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts that that relevant bank deposit has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee. And also the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.49,00,000 & Rs.1,89,43,840 on account of undisclosed capital

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

unexplained deposits in bank which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts that that relevant bank deposit has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee. And also the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.49,00,000 & Rs.1,89,43,840 on account of undisclosed capital

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

unexplained deposits in bank which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts that that relevant bank deposit has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee. And also the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.49,00,000 & Rs.1,89,43,840 on account of undisclosed capital

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

unexplained deposits in bank which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts that that relevant bank deposit has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee. And also the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.49,00,000 & Rs.1,89,43,840 on account of undisclosed capital

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)

investments made in other shares namely Valchand Nagar, Adani Enterprise, Power Grid, Adani Power, India Bulls and relevant statement, Demat account, confirmation of accounts, bank accounts, etc. Thus the assessing officer is not correct in holding the transaction whereas the Ld. CIT(A) after verifying the entire transactions held the transactions as genuine and allowed the deduction

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

capital gain. 6. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in not accepting the contention of the appellant that the amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000 received from Mr. Pawan Jalan was part of internal circulation and therefore, not unexplained receipt at all. 7. Alternatively and without prejudice, such

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

invested and the identity of the persons to whom the transactions were done, have to fail necessarily. • In such a factual scenario, the Assessing Officers, as well as the CIT(A), have adopted an inferential process which is a process which would be followed by a reasonable and prudent person. The Assessing Officers and the CIT(A) had culled

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

invested and the identity of the persons to whom the transactions were done, have to fail necessarily. • In such a factual scenario, the Assessing Officers, as well as the CIT(A), have adopted an inferential process which is a process which would be followed by a reasonable and prudent person. The Assessing Officers and the CIT(A) had culled

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

invested and the identity of the persons to whom the transactions were done, have to fail necessarily. • In such a factual scenario, the Assessing Officers, as well as the CIT(A), have adopted an inferential process which is a process which would be followed by a reasonable and prudent person. The Assessing Officers and the CIT(A) had culled

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

investments out\nof sale proceeds were made only in A.Y. 2009-10. On the cumulative\nappreciation of facts and law, it was urged that the reopening itself was\ninvalid and, without prejudice, no addition either on account of capital gains\nor alleged on-money could be sustained in A.Y. 2008-09.\n8. In response, the Ld. DR placed reliance

HIRAL TAPANKUMAR CHUDGAR,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

capital gain of Rs.29,55,558/- from the security transaction in Kushal Ltd. and Rs 4,26,069/- for the purchase transaction treated as unexplained investment

HEMANTKUMAR MANSUKHLAL SONI, HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Hemantkumar Mansukhlal Soni, Huf Ito, Ward-1(3)(1) 2254 Mahurat Pole Vs Ahmedabad. Manekchowk Ahmedabad-380001. Pan : Aabhh 1182 F (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Divatia, Ar & Shri Samir Vora, Ar Revenue By : Ms.Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Guptathis Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 27.04.203 15.3.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised In The Appeal Are As Under:

unexplained credit u/s 68 made by A.O.” 3. Ground no.3.1 and 3.2 were stated by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee to be the only effective grounds for adjudication before us. Ground no.1.1 and 2.1 were stated to be general in nature and therefore are not being dealt with by us. 4. The solitary issue, it was pointed out during

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, VADODARA vs. M/S. TASH INVESTMENT PVT. LTD,, VADODARA

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 821/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2015-16 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Tash Investment Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Abs Tower, Vs. Central Circle-3, Old Padra Road, Vadodara Vadodara, Gujarat Pan: Aaact 6737 A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Milin Mehta, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 25/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 18.01.2018 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,23,80,013/- (Rs.31,24,113/- Found From Locker No. 1483 Of Bank Of Baroda + Rs. 92,55,900/- Found From Locker No.430 Of Royal Bank Of Scotland) Made On Account Of Unexplained Jewellery Without Considering The Fact That The Assessee Could Not Explain The Source Of Investment & Also Could Not Submit The Documentary Evidences Regarding The Source Of Jewellery Like Purchase Bills, Vouchers Etc. Dcit Vs. Tash Investment Pvt Ltd Ay : 2015-16 2

unexplained investment in jewellery of Rs.1,23,80,013/- (ii) re-characterizing the income earned by the assesse from dealing in shares as business income as opposed to long term and short term capital gains

GUNVANTBHAI NARANDAS PATEL,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

capital gain. Therefore, the amount is liable to be added under deeming provision of 69A. Section 69A reads as under Unexplained money, etc. I.T.A No. 122/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 5 Gunvantbhai Narandas Patel vs. ITO 694. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money bullion jewellery or other valuable article

HIRAL TAPANKUMAR CHUDGAR,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And\nShri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Accountant Member\nITA Nos 43 & 44/Ahd/2025\nAssessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19\nHiral Tapankumar\nChudgar\n201/A, Premdarshan,\nBehind Jay Ambe School,\nSamasavli Raod, Vemali,\nVadodara-390008,\nGujarat\nPAN: ANCPC4000H\n(Appellant)\nIncome Tax Officer\nWard-1(3)(1),\nVs Vadodara\n(Respondent)\nAssessee Represented:\nShri Deepak Shah, A.R.\nRevenue Represented:\nShri Abhijit, Sr.D.R.\nDate of hearing\n: 18-06-

capital gain of Rs.29,55,558/-\nfrom the security transaction in Kushal Ltd. and Rs 4,26,069/- for the\npurchase transaction treated as unexplained investment