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

Short Term Capital Gains wherein cash is received by him from various clients and against this cash he provides accommodation entries. For providing these accommodation entries, SCS has created an infrastructure of 212 companies which were used for layering of funds and purchase and sale of shares, While providing such accumulation entries, the companies controlled by him/ intermediaries like Rajesh

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

Short Term Capital Gains wherein cash is received by him from various clients and against this cash he provides accommodation entries. For providing these accommodation entries, SCS has created an infrastructure of 212 companies which were used for layering of funds and purchase and sale of shares, While providing such accumulation entries, the companies controlled by him/ intermediaries like Rajesh

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)

short period of time which was not believed by the authorities below on the principles of preponderance of human probabilities in the given facts and circumstances. The rise in the price of the scripts of a company, having no financial base/business activity/profitability certainly gives rise to the doubt about such increase in the price. But in our considered view, this

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, AHMEDABAD vs. JHAVERI SANDEEP BIPINCHANDRA (HUF), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2016-17 Jhaveri Sandeep Income Tax Officer, Vs. Bipinchandra (Huf), Ward-5(3)(1), 21, Crest Nutan Laxmi Soc., Ahmedabad 9Th Road, Jvpd Scheme, Juhu, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400049 Pan : Aachj 0855 Q अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Pune-12 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 24.08.2023 Passed Under Section 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Ground Of Appeal No.1 Raised By The Department Reads As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Treating The Income Of Rs. 54,49,539/- As Short Term Capital Gain Instead Of Business Income.” 3. The Issue Raised In The Above Ground Relates To The Short Term Capital Gain Returned By The Assessee, On The Transactions Of Dealing In Shares, As Ito Vs Jhaveri Sandeep Bipinchandra Huf Ay : 2016-17 2

Short Term Capital Gains was correct. 5. The ld. DR, before us, was unable to controvert any of the factual findings of the ld. CIT(A) based on which he held the transactions to have been rightly returned under the head “capital gains”. The ld. DR was unable to controvert the findings of the ld. CIT(A) that similar transactions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 1 1, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. BHARAT LAKHAJI NANDWANA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 13.06.2025 passed for A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The Department has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,39,34,924/- on account of disallowance of exemption

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

Short-Term Capital Gains (Silver Harmony - AY 2020-21): Rs. 33,17,936/-. 10.1. Accordingly, the AO was directed to tax the capital gains year-wise under the appropriate heads and provide relief for the disallowed

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Term Capital Gain” (“LTCG” for short) in the hands of the assessee worked out at Rs. 65,28,303/-. Since assessee had already declared LTCG of Rs. 16,28,303/- in the return of income, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 49,00,000/- in respect of undisclosed capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under Section 271AAA came

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Term Capital Gain” (“LTCG” for short) in the hands of the assessee worked out at Rs. 65,28,303/-. Since assessee had already declared LTCG of Rs. 16,28,303/- in the return of income, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 49,00,000/- in respect of undisclosed capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under Section 271AAA came

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Term Capital Gain” (“LTCG” for short) in the hands of the assessee worked out at Rs. 65,28,303/-. Since assessee had already declared LTCG of Rs. 16,28,303/- in the return of income, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 49,00,000/- in respect of undisclosed capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under Section 271AAA came

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Term Capital Gain” (“LTCG” for short) in the hands of the assessee worked out at Rs. 65,28,303/-. Since assessee had already declared LTCG of Rs. 16,28,303/- in the return of income, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 49,00,000/- in respect of undisclosed capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under Section 271AAA came

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Term Capital Gain” (“LTCG” for short) in the hands of the assessee worked out at Rs. 65,28,303/-. Since assessee had already declared LTCG of Rs. 16,28,303/- in the return of income, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 49,00,000/- in respect of undisclosed capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under Section 271AAA came

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Term Capital Gain” (“LTCG” for short) in the hands of the assessee worked out at Rs. 65,28,303/-. Since assessee had already declared LTCG of Rs. 16,28,303/- in the return of income, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 49,00,000/- in respect of undisclosed capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under Section 271AAA came

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Term Capital Gain” (“LTCG” for short) in the hands of the assessee worked out at Rs. 65,28,303/-. Since assessee had already declared LTCG of Rs. 16,28,303/- in the return of income, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 49,00,000/- in respect of undisclosed capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under Section 271AAA came

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Term Capital Gain” (“LTCG” for short) in the hands of the assessee worked out at Rs. 65,28,303/-. Since assessee had already declared LTCG of Rs. 16,28,303/- in the return of income, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 49,00,000/- in respect of undisclosed capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under Section 271AAA came

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Term Capital Gain” (“LTCG” for short) in the hands of the assessee worked out at Rs. 65,28,303/-. Since assessee had already declared LTCG of Rs. 16,28,303/- in the return of income, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 49,00,000/- in respect of undisclosed capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under Section 271AAA came

HARSHADKUMAR HARGOVANDAS PATEL,KALOL vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

disallowance made by\nthe Assessing Officer was justified.\n3.3 Further, while framing the assessment, the Assessing Officer made a\ndisallowance of Rs.3,05,400/- towards cost of improvement and expenditure\nclaimed while computing Short-Term Capital Gain

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. JUBILEE TRADELINK PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. M/S. Jubilee Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, 9B, Bansidhar Apartments, Circle-5, Gyanganga Classes, Ahmedabad Jawaharnagar, Vasna, Ahmedabad Pan : Aabcj 0614 P अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ravindra, Sr Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Siddhartha Nautiyal: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Department Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-9, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 05.01.2016, Passed Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. 2. The Department Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding The Reassessment Proceedings As Void. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Not Appreciating That The Assessment Was Reopened Within Four Years From The Relevant Assessment Year & The Issue Decided In Reassessment Proceedings Was Not Dealt With During Original Assessment Proceedings..

disallowed the short-term capital loss of ₹30, 10,000/– and confirmed addition of ₹44,98,600/– on account of short-term capital gains

JAYSHREEBEN JAYANTIBHAI PALSANA,LIMBADIYA, BOTAD, GUJARAT vs. ITO WARD 1(9) BHAVANAGAR, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed a rebate claimed under Section 87A on short-term capital gains taxed under Section 111A, raising a demand. The CIT(A) upheld