ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

127(3) of the Act, in the event of assessee’s case being transferred from one officer to another Assessing Officer, within the same city, there is no requirement of giving any opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, this ground of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No.2:- CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessment proceedings

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

127(3) of the Act, in the event of assessee’s case being transferred from one officer to another Assessing Officer, within the same city, there is no requirement of giving any opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, this ground of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No.2:- CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessment proceedings

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

127(3) of the Act, in the event of assessee’s case being transferred from one officer to another Assessing Officer, within the same city, there is no requirement of giving any opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, this ground of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No.2:- CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessment proceedings

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

127(3) of the Act, in the event of assessee’s case being transferred from one officer to another Assessing Officer, within the same city, there is no requirement of giving any opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, this ground of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No.2:- CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessment proceedings

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

house and had claimed exemption under section 54 as well as section 54EC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). 4. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to substantiate the claim of exemption under section 54 and section 54EC of the Act. In response, the assessee submitted that the property sold during the year originally belonged to L.K. Nandwana

M/S. SHRI RANG INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. DCIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2013-14

127 of the Act does not hold any footing as the Assessing Officer while passing the Assessment Order has taken precaution by issuing notice under Section 143(2) and also 143(2) read with Section 129 of the Act was also passed and served to the assessee. In fact, the notices under Section 142(1) of the Act were issued

BHAVANJI JUGAJI THAKOR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

127 of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in making addition of Rs.34,30,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act.” Assessment Year: 2016-17 Page 2 of 4 3. The return of income was filed by the assessee on 28.12.2016 declaring total income of Rs.1

THE VENUS PARKLAND CO.OPERATGIVE HOUSING SERVICE SOCIETY LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(3)(5),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

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

127/- namely fixed deposit interest income of Rs.24,31,919/-, Rental Income of Rs.35,041/- and Interest on Income Tax refund of Rs.4,167/-. 3. Aggrieved against the assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee utilizes its surplus fund for investment in Fixed Deposits with bank. The interest that

VAISHALI BABUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 380/Ahd/2020 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Vaishali Babubhai Patel, The Principal Commissioner B-201, Vs. Of Income Tax-3, Gala Gardenia Apartments, Ahmedabad. Nr. Safal Parisar, South Bopal, Ahmedabad-380058. Pan: Abdpp0233G

housing society for a total consideration of Rs.45,80,000. It is further submitted that before entering into the final sale agreement, the assessee with 9 others spent Rs.28,00,000/- towards improvement cost, and expenses have been incurred through regular banking channels. Accordingly, the total cost of the impugned land was arrived at Rs.73,80,000/-. The amount invested

SOPHOS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

House, Vs Ahmedabad Near Kalgi X Rasta, Gujarat College Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006, Gujarat, India PAN: AACCC7727M (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee Represented: Shri DhaneshBafna, Shri Amol Mahajan & Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, A.Rs. Revenue Represented: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT- DR Date of hearing : 08-01-2026 Date of pronouncement : 29-01-2026 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal

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

127/- in Α.Y. 93-94. (5) That learned ACIT erred in not supplying evidence to prove alleged charges of claims / receipts / utilization / repayment of such alleged income tax refund money receipts, though directed to supply by Hon’ble ITAT. (6) That learned ACIT erred in not supplying copies of statement dt. 21-4-93 recorded by ITO Ward

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

127/- in Α.Y. 93-94. (5) That learned ACIT erred in not supplying evidence to prove alleged charges of claims / receipts / utilization / repayment of such alleged income tax refund money receipts, though directed to supply by Hon’ble ITAT. (6) That learned ACIT erred in not supplying copies of statement dt. 21-4-93 recorded by ITO Ward

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground No. 10 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

House, 1st Floor, G Block, Taxation)-1, Plot No. C-60, Bnadra Kurla Ahmedabad Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 [PAN No.AAHCS9360D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, A.R. Respondent by: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT DR Date of Hearing 27.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement 25.11.2024 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL

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. 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 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 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