THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KUNJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1809-1810/Ahd/2017 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2854/Ahd/2016 With C.O. 13/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 D.C.I.T, M/S.Kunj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Zodiac Plaza, Cirle-2(1)(2), Vs. Ahmedabad. St. Xaviers Corner, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aadck1900D

condone the delay. Accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit. The assessee in the first ground of CO has challenged the proceedings under section 147 of the Act which was based on the information received from the Invetigation wing. 5. At the outset the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that he has been instructed not to press

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

269/- C. Capital Gain – [as per Return of income] Rs. 11,37,32,825/- D. Income from other sources [as per Return of income] Rs. 80,07,21,966/- Assessed Income Rs.18,14,03,03,585/- Brought forward losses of Rs. 2,41,44,65,028, Rs. NIL for A.Y. 2013-14 Adjusted fully by the Dept. while passing order

MINESH BIPINBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarit(Ss)A No.23/Ahd/2024 Asstt.Year : 2015-16 & Asstt.Year 2016-17 Minesh Bipinbhai Patel The Dcit, Cent.Cir.1 10, Shantivan Society Vs. Race Course Sussen Tarsali Road Vadodara. Makarpura Vadodara 390 010. Pan : Acqpp 7756 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr & Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

delay of 153 days in filing both the appeals is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Facts of the Case 3.1 For A.Y. 2015–16, the assessee had originally filed his return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 31.08.2015, declaring total income of Rs.1

DCIT CIRCLE GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI UMIYA CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD LINCH, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

condonation is dismissed. Further, we do not find any merit in the special leave petition. Hence, the special leave petition is dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on merits. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of." I.T.A 1932 & 1933/Ahd/2025 A.Y: 2016-17 6 DCIT Vs. Shri Umiya Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. 5.1.8 In view

DCIT, CIRCLE GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI UMIYA CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD LINCH, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

condonation is dismissed. Further, we do not find any merit in the special leave petition. Hence, the special leave petition is dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on merits. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of." I.T.A 1932 & 1933/Ahd/2025 A.Y: 2016-17 6 DCIT Vs. Shri Umiya Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. 5.1.8 In view

BARAIYA GALAJI KALAJI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 1448(9) of the Act. 4. That the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in assessing income of 2,10,18,000/- without verifying the actual cost of acquisition and sale consideration and merely relying on system-generated information without any independent inquiry or supporting evidence. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the settled judicial position laid down

BARAIYA GALAJI KALAJI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member | ITA No: 2179 & 2180/Ahd/2025 | | Assessment Year: 2015-16 | | Baraiya Galaji Kalaji 93 Arjun Vas, Nana Chiloda, B.O. Ahmedabad Gandhinagar-382330 Gujarat, India PAN: BEMPB9663R (Appellant) | Vs | The ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar Gandhingar (Respondent) | Assessee Represented: Shri Chintan Thakkar, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 03-03-2026 Date of pronouncement : 09-

Section 1448(9) of the Act. 4. That the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in assessing income of 2,10,18,000/- without verifying the actual cost of acquisition and sale consideration and merely relying on system-generated information without any independent inquiry or supporting evidence. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the settled judicial position laid down

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. MOHAMMEDARIF IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

condone the delay. 6. So far as the maintainability of the proceeding initiated under Section 147 of the Act is concerned, the crux of the submission made by the Ld. A.R. is this that the same is based on change of opinion. No new and/or any tangible material was available with the Ld. AO to come to a conclusion that

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. MOHAMMEDARIF IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

condone the delay. 6. So far as the maintainability of the proceeding initiated under Section 147 of the Act is concerned, the crux of the submission made by the Ld. A.R. is this that the same is based on change of opinion. No new and/or any tangible material was available with the Ld. AO to come to a conclusion that

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. WELSUIT GLASS & CERAMICS PVT. LTD., VADODARA

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

269 ELT A108. The facts of this case and the orders of the Allahabad High Court is as follows:- “[Order]- These appeals under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are against the order of the Tribunal dated 19-6-2008 [2009 (237) E.L.T. 674 (Tri. - Del.)], by which the Tribunal

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4,, BARODA vs. M/S. WELSUIT GLASS & CERAMICS PVT. LTD., BARODA

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

269 ELT A108. The facts of this case and the orders of the Allahabad High Court is as follows:- “[Order]- These appeals under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are against the order of the Tribunal dated 19-6-2008 [2009 (237) E.L.T. 674 (Tri. - Del.)], by which the Tribunal

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4,, BARODA vs. M/S. WELSUIT GLASS & CERAMICS PVT. LTD., BARODA

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

269 ELT A108. The facts of this case and the orders of the Allahabad High Court is as follows:- “[Order]- These appeals under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are against the order of the Tribunal dated 19-6-2008 [2009 (237) E.L.T. 674 (Tri. - Del.)], by which the Tribunal

THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-4,, BARODA vs. M/S. WELSUIT GLASS & CERAMICS PVT. LTD., BARODA

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

269 ELT A108. The facts of this case and the orders of the Allahabad High Court is as follows:- “[Order]- These appeals under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are against the order of the Tribunal dated 19-6-2008 [2009 (237) E.L.T. 674 (Tri. - Del.)], by which the Tribunal

SHRI MUKESH RASIKLAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9, NOW CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

269 (ALL). ITA Nos. 3217 & 3218/Ahd/2015 Shri Mukesh Rasklal Shah Vs. ACIT Asst. Year :1992-93 & 1993-94 - 18– Once the character of the activity has been ascertained as being in the nature of trade, the person who carries it on cannot found himself upon the element of illegality in it, to avoid the tax (Lindsay

SHRI MUKESH RASIKLAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9, NOW CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

269 (ALL). ITA Nos. 3217 & 3218/Ahd/2015 Shri Mukesh Rasklal Shah Vs. ACIT Asst. Year :1992-93 & 1993-94 - 18– Once the character of the activity has been ascertained as being in the nature of trade, the person who carries it on cannot found himself upon the element of illegality in it, to avoid the tax (Lindsay