THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

house property qua the properties held as stock in trade on account of deemed rental income. 6.4 As the assessee succeeds on the reasoning as elaborated in the preceding paragraph, therefore we are not inclined to adjudicate the other contentions raised by the Ld.AR for the assessee. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA Nos.37-38/AHD/2021 A.Y.s

LYSA TRADING LLP,AHMEDABAD,GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2022-23 Lysa Trading Llp Ito, Ward-1(2)(3) Corporate House-2, Shilp Vs Ahmedabad. Corporate Park Rajpath Rangoli Road Bodakdev Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaifl 3030 D (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Ms.Amrin Pathan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

section 194- I has been deducted by the payer. The aforementioned amount was stated to be inclusive of “CAM” Charges of Rs.17,08,908/-,the 3 recovery of which was agreed between the assessee and “SEPL”. The assessee had clarified that during the impugned year, it had incurred total amount of Rs.34,29,816/- towards “CAM” charges, out of which

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SANJAY KISHANLAL BISHNOI,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

properties. 8.2 Shri Mohan Bishnoi was authorized by M/s. Bishnoi Trading Corporation for the purpose of banking transactions whereas Shri Omprakash Bishnoi was authorized by M/s. Bishnoi Trading Corporation for effecting import- export related transactions; that they had authorized M/s. Palak Logistics, Mumbai for their activities at Nhava Sheva and M/s. Trinity Shipping, Gandhidham for their activities at Gandhidham; that

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SANJAY KISHANLAL BISHNOI,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

properties. 8.2 Shri Mohan Bishnoi was authorized by M/s. Bishnoi Trading Corporation for the purpose of banking transactions whereas Shri Omprakash Bishnoi was authorized by M/s. Bishnoi Trading Corporation for effecting import- export related transactions; that they had authorized M/s. Palak Logistics, Mumbai for their activities at Nhava Sheva and M/s. Trinity Shipping, Gandhidham for their activities at Gandhidham; that

THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE, MEHSANA vs. SHRI UMESH VADILAL KHAMAR, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

house property. Vide appellate order dated 17.12.2018, the addition of Rs.51,60,000/- was confirmed whereas the addition of Rs.26,60,000/- was deleted for the reason that it was the outgoing investment from the incoming undisclosed income of Rs.51,60,000/-. In the case of Shri Rajnikant V. Khamar, who was acting as commission agent and not involved

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#।]

Properties and projects Ltd. were purchased on 10/10/2014 at the cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- and were sold on 20/06/2017 for Rs. 9,97,500/- and similarly 50,000/- shares of Purple Enterprises limited were purchased at the cost of Rs. 9,41,250/- on 02.01.2015 and subsequently sold on 20.06.2017 for Rs. 14,41,250/-. It was submitted

THE ACIT., PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

property for 59 months and defect liability period of 2 months specifically in some of the projects which envisage that the assessee is sole infrastructure developer in the present scenario in the projects where CIT(A) has observed so and there was no other third party involved in these projects for conducting the sub- delegation of the work awarded

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

property for 59 months and defect liability period of 2 months specifically in some of the projects which envisage that the assessee is sole infrastructure developer in the present scenario in the projects where CIT(A) has observed so and there was no other third party involved in these projects for conducting the sub- delegation of the work awarded

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

property for 59 months and defect liability period of 2 months specifically in some of the projects which envisage that the assessee is sole infrastructure developer in the present scenario in the projects where CIT(A) has observed so and there was no other third party involved in these projects for conducting the sub- delegation of the work awarded

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

property for 59 months and defect liability period of 2 months specifically in some of the projects which envisage that the assessee is sole infrastructure developer in the present scenario in the projects where CIT(A) has observed so and there was no other third party involved in these projects for conducting the sub- delegation of the work awarded

THE ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

property for 59 months and defect liability period of 2 months specifically in some of the projects which envisage that the assessee is sole infrastructure developer in the present scenario in the projects where CIT(A) has observed so and there was no other third party involved in these projects for conducting the sub- delegation of the work awarded

THE ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

property for 59 months and defect liability period of 2 months specifically in some of the projects which envisage that the assessee is sole infrastructure developer in the present scenario in the projects where CIT(A) has observed so and there was no other third party involved in these projects for conducting the sub- delegation of the work awarded

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

property for 59 months and defect liability period of 2 months specifically in some of the projects which envisage that the assessee is sole infrastructure developer in the present scenario in the projects where CIT(A) has observed so and there was no other third party involved in these projects for conducting the sub- delegation of the work awarded

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

property for 59 months and defect liability period of 2 months specifically in some of the projects which envisage that the assessee is sole infrastructure developer in the present scenario in the projects where CIT(A) has observed so and there was no other third party involved in these projects for conducting the sub- delegation of the work awarded

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

property for 59 months and defect liability period of 2 months specifically in some of the projects which envisage that the assessee is sole infrastructure developer in the present scenario in the projects where CIT(A) has observed so and there was no other third party involved in these projects for conducting the sub- delegation of the work awarded

SHRI UMANG H. THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,WARD-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member)

property appreciating the facts of the case and the materials brought on record by the AO. (1.2) The Ld. CIT[A]-XVI, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in accepting the contention of the assessee that the amount of unexplained income has already been offered for tax without appreciating that the assessee could not substantiate its claim

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-11,, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI UMANG HIRALAL THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member)

property appreciating the facts of the case and the materials brought on record by the AO. (1.2) The Ld. CIT[A]-XVI, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in accepting the contention of the assessee that the amount of unexplained income has already been offered for tax without appreciating that the assessee could not substantiate its claim

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI RAMESH GOBARJI THAKOR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer Vs. Shri Ramesh Gobarji Thakor Ward-3 Sector 11 Gandhinagar. Gandhinagar. Pan : Aespt 3446 H (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/07/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Properties, Rachana Fin P.Ltd. This detail was collated by the AO from the information provided by the bank, which is reproduced at page no.15 of the assessment order as under: 4 6. Since the assessee did not co-operate in the assessment proceedings, the AO made inquiries with the persons who had given money to the assessee i.e. Hansa Patel