VINIT BIPINCHANDRA SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3) (PREVIOUSLY WARD-5(2)(4)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

131/- on sale of one flat, one godown & a gold-bar. The assessee had also claimed deduction under Section 54F of the Act in respect of purchase of new residential property at “Noble Antrix”. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee had disclosed two house

SHRI PURSHOTTAM B. PITRODA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, RANGE -12,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

house at Shilaj for labour. One residential property is used by proprietor. Other property are used by his daughter and son. So there is no addition as notional income. The value of the all the said properties is Rs.48,57,897/- as per balance sheet. The contention of the assessee is seen and it was observed that the property income

SHRI DHANRAJ BAXIRAM CHOPRA,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

131 of the Act of the tenants who were residing in those flats. Accordingly the AO held that condition as specified under section 54F of the Act for making investment in a residential property has not been fulfilled. Thus the AO denied the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 54F of the Act and added the same

DCIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ALPESHKUMAR C.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1908/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive In Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. Pan: Aeapp9489G

131(1) of the Act denies to have entered into any actual agreement with the assessee for the purchase of the impugned property. As such, all the confirming parties admitted that they were paid commission of ₹1 lakh each by the assessee for using their name and bank account to manipulate the transactions. As such, whatever money was received

SHRI NAGIN A VAGHELA,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

house property, business, and other sources. Following a search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act concerning the Vaghela Group on August 30, 2013, a notice under section 153A was issued for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2013-14. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny for the assessment year 2014-15 and on December

SHRI NAGIN A VAGHELA,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

house property, business, and other sources. Following a search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act concerning the Vaghela Group on August 30, 2013, a notice under section 153A was issued for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2013-14. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny for the assessment year 2014-15 and on December

SHRI NARENDRA B. PATEL,,SABARKANTHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, HIMATNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3153/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Narendra B. Patel, I.T.O., 592, Pampaliva Vas, Vs. Ward-2, Moyad, Himatnagar. Sabarkantha-383110. Pan: Asupp6989M

House 6 DevaDhai Patel Bank of 006906 10,41,488/- India. Salal 1/3/201 1 12.5 The assessee in support of the impugned transaction as discussed above has furnished the confirmation from the parties along with their PAN numbers and party wise/ date wise payment to vendor along with cheque details. Accordingly the assessee, contended that the impugned transactions were carried

SANDIP KANUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 104/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2017-2018 Sandip Kanubhai Patel, Principal Commissioner Of Avirat House, Vs. Income Tax-3, Nr. Science City, Ahmedabad. Sola Science City Road, Sola, Ahmedabad.

section 143(3) as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 3. The brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and deriving income from salary, House property, share of profit from partnership, capital gain and from other sources. The assessee during the year sold an agricultural property bearing survey number 131

VINEETSINGH GULABSINGH RORE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

section 263 to us, appears to be a plausible explanation, and there is no doubt that in the consequent assessment, the assessee was assessed multiple times to its returned income, which forced him into action and he came to the consult another legal adviser on whose advise the present appeal was filed before us. The delay in filing of appeal

SMT. PREMILABEN NATVARBHAI PATEL,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2),, BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2660/Ahd/2013 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2759/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09) Pramilaben N. Patel The Income Tax बनाम/ At & Post Padamla Officer Vs. District - Baroda Ward-2(2) Baroda "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acspp 2455 Q .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Ms.Aditi Sheth, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr.Dr

house property” and “other sources.” The agricultural income was also declared which was claimed as exempt from tax. However, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee is not the owner of the land in respect of which she derived the agricultural income. As such, the land belonged to the daughters of the assessee namely Jyotiben N. Patel and Sonalben

NIKSHAL POPERTIES PVT. LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumaray Sl.

Section 68 of the Act. ITA Nos. 2785 & 2812/Ahd/2017 5 Cross Appeals : Ardor Overseas Pvt Ltd VS. DCIT and ITA No.206Ahd/2018- Nikshal Properties Pvt Ltd. AY : 2014-15 However, noting that he had already affected the adjustment to the cost of land acquired by the assessee by reducing it by Rs.36 crores odd, he added the balance amount of Rs.8

ITO, WARD-1(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ARDOR OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumaray Sl.

Section 68 of the Act. ITA Nos. 2785 & 2812/Ahd/2017 5 Cross Appeals : Ardor Overseas Pvt Ltd VS. DCIT and ITA No.206Ahd/2018- Nikshal Properties Pvt Ltd. AY : 2014-15 However, noting that he had already affected the adjustment to the cost of land acquired by the assessee by reducing it by Rs.36 crores odd, he added the balance amount of Rs.8

ARDOR OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumaray Sl.

Section 68 of the Act. ITA Nos. 2785 & 2812/Ahd/2017 5 Cross Appeals : Ardor Overseas Pvt Ltd VS. DCIT and ITA No.206Ahd/2018- Nikshal Properties Pvt Ltd. AY : 2014-15 However, noting that he had already affected the adjustment to the cost of land acquired by the assessee by reducing it by Rs.36 crores odd, he added the balance amount of Rs.8

CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed as not pressed

property transferred or services provided in a comparable uncontrolled transaction, or a number of such transactions, is identified, and then such price is adjusted to account for differences, if any, between the international transaction and the comparable uncontrolled transactions or between the enterprises entering into such transactions, which could materially affect the price in the o pen market. Usually loan

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

houses in India for residential purposes and 67[which is eligible for deduction under clause (viii) of sub-section (1) of section 36]; 68[(ixa) deposits with or investment in any bonds issued by a public company formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing long-term finance for urban infrastructure

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

houses in India for residential purposes and 67[which is eligible for deduction under clause (viii) of sub-section (1) of section 36]; 68[(ixa) deposits with or investment in any bonds issued by a public company formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing long-term finance for urban infrastructure

THE ACIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

houses in India for residential purposes and 67[which is eligible for deduction under clause (viii) of sub-section (1) of section 36]; 68[(ixa) deposits with or investment in any bonds issued by a public company formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing long-term finance for urban infrastructure

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

houses in India for residential purposes and 67[which is eligible for deduction under clause (viii) of sub-section (1) of section 36]; 68[(ixa) deposits with or investment in any bonds issued by a public company formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing long-term finance for urban infrastructure

NARAYANLAL BHANAJI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

house property, business income, capital gains and income from other sources. During the year, the assessee had also declared brokerage income of ₹3,00,000/- and commission income of ₹2,65,000/-. A search and seizure action under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") was conducted in the case of the Political Parties and Charitable Organisations