GALAXY DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT., CIRCLE-7(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed

House Property' before AY 2018-19, as it should be treated as business income. It also held that expenses incurred for stamp duty, registration, and vakil fees for acquiring trading stock are allowable.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "250

BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA, (L/H OF LATE BHAGWATSINH J CHAVDA),AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

250 of the Act vide order dated 01/07/2016 & 25-03-2019 passed for the assessment year 2011-12. I.T.A Nos. 2281/Ahd/2016, 511/Ahd/2018,1075 &1076/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. 2 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “ 1 The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI R. MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

250 of the Act vide order dated 01/07/2016 & 25-03-2019 passed for the assessment year 2011-12. I.T.A Nos. 2281/Ahd/2016, 511/Ahd/2018,1075 &1076/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. 2 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “ 1 The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming

LATE BHAGWATSINH JIBHUBHAI CHAVDA)L/H.BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

250 of the Act vide order dated 01/07/2016 & 25-03-2019 passed for the assessment year 2011-12. I.T.A Nos. 2281/Ahd/2016, 511/Ahd/2018,1075 &1076/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. 2 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “ 1 The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI RANCHHODBHAI MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

250 of the Act vide order dated 01/07/2016 & 25-03-2019 passed for the assessment year 2011-12. I.T.A Nos. 2281/Ahd/2016, 511/Ahd/2018,1075 &1076/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. 2 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “ 1 The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming

MOHIT VIJAYKUMAR GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, Ground No

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1091/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2021-22 Mohit Vijaykumar Gupta The Dcit बनाम/ B-1001, Juhu Trishul, Circle-2(1)(1) V/S. Gulmohar Cross Road No.6 Ahmedabad – 380 015 Jvpd Vile Parle West Mumbai – 400 049 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Adfpg 7162 D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri J. C. Desai, Ca Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 14/12/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-2022. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Mohit Vijaykumar Gupta Vs. Dcit Asst. Year : 2021-22

250 less deduction u/s 24 ₹.108,675). (b) Your appellant prays that the Ld. A O may be directed to modify the addition on account of deemed rent to ₹.2,53,575/- as against ₹.13,86,000/-. 4. Your Appellant craves leave to add, to alter to vary or to amend the above grounds of appeal.” 3. The brief facts

VANDEMATARAM PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VASTRAPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD, PRATYAKSH KAR BHAVAN

In the result the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

250 on 21.03.2024 for A.Y.2014-15 by Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Lucknow upholding the additions/ disallowances of Rs.14,06,878 is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not considering fully and properly the eccentric facts and evidence available with regard to the impugned

SHRI VIKAS NARAYAN BADDI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt.Suchitra Kambleassessment Year :2012-13

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) dated 18.12.2015 pertaining to the Asst.Year 2012-13. 2. At the outset itself, it was stated that solitary issue involved in the present appeal related to denial of claim of exemption of long term capital gain of Rs.1,08,69,338/- on account of investment of the same

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) dismissing the appeal of the assessee against the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) passed under section 143(3) of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee in the appeal read as under: 2 1. The learned AO as well

ANIRUDDH RINKI GANDHI,BARODA vs. DCIT (INTL. TAXN), BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2015-16 Aniruddhrinki Gandhi Dcit (Intl.Taxn.) 14, Vaikunh Apartment Vs Baroda. Laxminarayan Co-Op. Society Gotri Road, Baroda. Pan : Bbnpg 1052 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah, Advocate Revenue By : Shri V.K.Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 21.01.2019 Passed By Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 13/Intl.Taxn./Ahd/75/2017-18 Relating To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Assessee’S Grounds Of Appeal Are As Follows:

house property was made in December 2015 and onwards which prove that even though sale proceeds were received in October 2015, funds were not used immediately but appellant waited and made investment made in span of 2 to 4 months. It is also observed that though appellant has filed original return of income on 31/08/2015 and at that entire funds

LALJIBHAI GODADBHAI CHAUDHARI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

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

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are as follows:- “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition made by AO of Rs.2

ILABAHEN VIRALKUMAR MEHTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The

Housing office, Beside Society Station Road, C.K. Hall, Anand-388001, Mayfair Road, Gujarat Anand-388001 PAN: BABPM9646N Gujarat (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Ms. Kinjal V. Shah, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 08-07-2024 Date of pronouncement : 08-07-2024 आदेश/ORDER This appeal in ITA No. 17/Ahd/2024 for assessment year 2012-13 filed

JADE GRANITES INDUSTRIES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Which Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 23-11-2023 In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1058173176(1)

house property, and remuneration, interest and share profit from partnership firm. Therefore, there is no source of income where cash was generated and deposited in bank account and issued cheques out of these funds. Shri Sanjaykumar not submitted his cash book also failed to explain source of cash deposit in bank account. Shri Harpalsinh Yadav failed to submit written document

KAPILA MAHENDRA PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2024-25 Kapila Mahendra Patel Vs. The Dy.Cit Circle-1(1)(1) Kamdhenu Estate Aayakar Bhavan Opp. Citi Bank Race Course Race Course Circle Vadodara – 390 007 Vadodara – 390 007 Pan : Adbpp 3883 G अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hemant Suthar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/01/2026

250/- as against the returned income of Rs. 1,70,94,750/-, thereby resulting in an upward adjustment of Rs. 10,81,500/- under the head “Income from House Property” and accordingly consequential demand was raised upon the assessee. 3.1. Prior to passing the intimation, the CPC had issued a notice under section

ATUL LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT (OSD), RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: Us, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Took Us Through The Chronology Of Events Leading To The Rectification Order Passed U/S. 154 Of The Act ,Which Was Carried In Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Dismissed The Same & Against Which The Assessee Has Come Up In Appeal Before Us. Ld. Counsel For The

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y) 2005-06 in appeal against order passed in rectification proceedings u/s. 154 of the Act. 2. During the course of hearing before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee took us through the chronology of events leading to the rectification order passed

SUN DIVINE CO. OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(2)(5), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

250 of the Act is justifiable or not. 6. The Ld.A.R before us submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench, Kolkata in the case of Daulal Kothari vs DCIT bearing ITA No.1065/Kol/2016 for Sun Divine Co. Op. Housing Society Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year –2015-16 A.Y. 2010-11 dated 07.03.2018 involving identical facts and circumstances has decided the issue in favour

SHAILESH NATVARLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] for the Assessment Year 2018–19, confirming the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act dated 17.02.2021 by the Income Tax Officer, Ward

JAY NARENDRAKUMAR THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 64/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Jay Narendrakumar Thakkar, I.T.O., A-503, Sagar Samrat Old Sharda Mandir, Vs. Ward-1(2)(2), Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aavpt8602J

property 1/2 sale consideration as per form No.1 =Rs.61,03,800/- Less: Indexed Cost (1807347 x 711/406) Rs.31,65,135/- Less: Construction cost Rs.17,66,324/- Rs.49,31,459/- Rs.11,72,341/- Less: Proportion of profit Rs.6103800 x 12,50,000/- = Rs.2,40,084/- 1172341 Correct Long Term capital Rs.9,32,257/- 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, RACE COURSE CIRLCE, VADODARA vs. MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, RACE COURSE CIRLCE, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] for the assessment year 2021–22 arising out of the order dated 19.12.2022 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act.\nFacts of the Case\n2. The assessee company is engaged in electricity distribution