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

money in garb of long term capital gain and, thus, claim raised by her was to be rejected. 23. The Bombay High Court in the case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain v. PCIT [2018] 89 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay)held that where assessee had purchased shares of penny stocks companies at lesser amount and within a year sold such shares at much

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)

unexplained cash credit.” 8. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Shri Nileshkumar Dashratbhai Patel (in ITA No. 55/Ahd/2020 dated 16.08.2022) considered the very same script of SRK Industries Ltd. and allowed the Long Term Capital Gain claimed by the assessee by observing as follows: “10. We have heard the rival contentions of both

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

money (unrecorded cash). These were related to properties such as Khoral Land (Survey 38/1/1), Shilpgram Land (Jaspur - 651) and Flat advances for A-902 Silver Harmony. The CIT(A) concluded that the transactions were capital in nature and are to be taxed under capital gains. The CIT(A) allowed deduction for unaccounted expenses related to these transactions for calculating taxable

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

money of ₹1,05,72,000/- in cash,\nwhich was not disclosed. Since the assessee failed to substantiate the receipt\nof such cash with any evidence, the Assessing Officer treated ₹1,05,72,000/-\nas unexplained receipt taxable as “income from other sources\". The\nAssessing Officer also treated ₹4,98,000/- as short-term capital gain

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain in the return of income. Based on certain materials found during the course of search, the Assessing Officer concluded that the real rate of land in question was Rs. 16,000/- per sq. yard and hence the Assessing Officer held that the actual sale consideration was Rs. 8,42,36,640/- (Rs. ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain in the return of income. Based on certain materials found during the course of search, the Assessing Officer concluded that the real rate of land in question was Rs. 16,000/- per sq. yard and hence the Assessing Officer held that the actual sale consideration was Rs. 8,42,36,640/- (Rs. ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain in the return of income. Based on certain materials found during the course of search, the Assessing Officer concluded that the real rate of land in question was Rs. 16,000/- per sq. yard and hence the Assessing Officer held that the actual sale consideration was Rs. 8,42,36,640/- (Rs. ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain in the return of income. Based on certain materials found during the course of search, the Assessing Officer concluded that the real rate of land in question was Rs. 16,000/- per sq. yard and hence the Assessing Officer held that the actual sale consideration was Rs. 8,42,36,640/- (Rs. ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain in the return of income. Based on certain materials found during the course of search, the Assessing Officer concluded that the real rate of land in question was Rs. 16,000/- per sq. yard and hence the Assessing Officer held that the actual sale consideration was Rs. 8,42,36,640/- (Rs. ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain in the return of income. Based on certain materials found during the course of search, the Assessing Officer concluded that the real rate of land in question was Rs. 16,000/- per sq. yard and hence the Assessing Officer held that the actual sale consideration was Rs. 8,42,36,640/- (Rs. ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain in the return of income. Based on certain materials found during the course of search, the Assessing Officer concluded that the real rate of land in question was Rs. 16,000/- per sq. yard and hence the Assessing Officer held that the actual sale consideration was Rs. 8,42,36,640/- (Rs. ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain in the return of income. Based on certain materials found during the course of search, the Assessing Officer concluded that the real rate of land in question was Rs. 16,000/- per sq. yard and hence the Assessing Officer held that the actual sale consideration was Rs. 8,42,36,640/- (Rs. ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain in the return of income. Based on certain materials found during the course of search, the Assessing Officer concluded that the real rate of land in question was Rs. 16,000/- per sq. yard and hence the Assessing Officer held that the actual sale consideration was Rs. 8,42,36,640/- (Rs. ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri

VIMARSH PRAKASHBHAI VASAVADA,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2)(2), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes subject to payment of cost

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

unexplained money u/s 69A despite the fact that income from transfer of membership rights was duly offered to tax as income under the head "Capital Gains

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

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)

money is deemed to be income of the assessee for the year in which it was deposited in this case the assessee failed to explain his claim that it relates to capital gain. Therefore, the amount is liable to be added under deeming provision of 69A. Section 69A reads as under Unexplained

ISMAIL ABDULAZIZ LAKHANI,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: the same were transferred through registered broker, on the floor of the recognized stock exchange, after suffering Security Transaction Tax and ultimately settled through proper banking channel) as unaccounted income under Section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.1,51,12,000/-.

unexplained sources u/s.69C of the Act. 6. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who confirmed both the additions. 7. Both the parties were heard at length and the brief submissions filed by the assessee before us in writing were also gone through. The primary argument made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee which

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

money in the guise of exempted Long Term Capital Gain. He, therefore, justified action of the AO in treating the entire sale consideration of Rs.538.40 Crores as unexplained