JCIT(OSD), CIR-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE (INDIA) LTD, HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceuticals & Cosmetic products. The assessee had filed its return of income for the year under consideration

SHRI KIRANKUMAR RASIKLAL SANGHVI,DEESA vs. THE PR.CIT-4,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi, The Principal Commissioner Of 1, Paras Society, Neminathnagar Income-Tax-4, Vs. Road, Deesa, Gujarat-385535 Ahmedabad Pan : Afops 0131 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri Durga Dutt, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-4, Ahmedabad [Herein- After Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 03.03.2020, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Noted The Present Appeal To Be Barred By Limitation By 1355 Days. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Explained That There Was, In Fact, No Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal For The Reason That The Assessee Had Inadvertently Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit Before The Surat Bench Of The Itat Which, When The Appeal Came Up For Hearing Before It, Passed A Judicial Order Dated 21.11.2023 Dismissing The Appeal As Withdrawn, Noting The Fact That The Correct Jurisdiction Lay With The 2 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi Vs. Pcit Ay : 2015-16

2) The Principal CIT has erred in law and on fact of the case in setting aside the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act for computing income from House Property.” 4. We have heard both the parties at length and gone through the material available on record. The primary error found by the Ld. PCIT in the order passed

BHARGAVKUMAR PARSOTTAMBHAI PATEL HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2023-24 Arun Gopilal Samnani The I.T.O., Ward-5(3)(1) 7, Bank Of Baroda Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. P.T. College Paldi, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aywps 2887 D Assessment Year :2023-24 Bhargavkumarparsottambh The I.T.O., Ward-1(2)(1) Ai Patel-Huf Vs Ahmedabad. B/301, 3Rd Floor Shree Saran-2 Opp: Anand Niketan School Thaltej, Ahmedabad 380089. Pan : Aalhb 2685 R

250(6)_of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) ,dismissing the appeal of the assessee against the intimation /order of the Assessing Officer (AO)/CPC, Bangalore, passed under section 143(1) of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year2023-24. 2. Ld. counsel for the assessees submitted that the issues raised in both appeals are identical, pertaining

ARUN GOPILAL SAMNANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2023-24 Arun Gopilal Samnani The I.T.O., Ward-5(3)(1) 7, Bank Of Baroda Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. P.T. College Paldi, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aywps 2887 D Assessment Year :2023-24 Bhargavkumarparsottambh The I.T.O., Ward-1(2)(1) Ai Patel-Huf Vs Ahmedabad. B/301, 3Rd Floor Shree Saran-2 Opp: Anand Niketan School Thaltej, Ahmedabad 380089. Pan : Aalhb 2685 R

250(6)_of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) ,dismissing the appeal of the assessee against the intimation /order of the Assessing Officer (AO)/CPC, Bangalore, passed under section 143(1) of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year2023-24. 2. Ld. counsel for the assessees submitted that the issues raised in both appeals are identical, pertaining

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", "143(3)", "143(2

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

ACIT ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND, ANAND vs. ELECON ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD, VALLABH VIDYANAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Us.

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2020-21. ITA No. 2084/Ahd/2024 [ACIT vs. Elecon Engineering Company Ltd.] A.Y. 2020-21 - 2 – 2. Grounds raised by the Revenue are as under: “i) “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT

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

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), AHMEDABAD vs. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaasst. Commissioner Of M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax, Corporate House, S.G. Highway, Central Circle 2(3), Nr. Sola Bridge, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380 054 [Pan : Aaaci 5120 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit (Dr) Respondent Represented By: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, Ar Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble:-

House, S.G. Highway, Central Circle 2(3), Nr. Sola Bridge, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380 054 [PAN : AAACI 5120 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant represented by : Shri Sher Singh, CIT (DR) Respondent represented by: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, AR Date of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 O R D E R PER MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE

RAMESH NAGINDAS SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

2. The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1.1 The order passed u/s 250 passed on 15-7-2019 for A.Y.2013-14 by CIT(A)- 5, A'bad upholding the addition of Rs.25,93,812/- as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) and Rs.20,000/- towards house property income is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice

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

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

ANILKUMAR DWARKAPRASAD MODANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)(PREVIOUSLY DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)), VADODARA

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1572/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Anilkumar Dwarkaprasad Modani The Dy.Cit बनाम/ A-17, Videocon Housing Colony Circle-2(1)(1) V/S. Chavaj, Bharuch 392 002 Vadodara (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Acnpm 0273 C अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hemant Suthar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26/12/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, In Which The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao)”] Under Section 50C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] Was Confirmed Vide Assessment Order Dated 28/03/2016. Facts Of The Case: 2. The Assessee, An Individual Earning Income From Salaries, Trading In Shares & Securities, Capital Gains & Other Sources, Filed His Return Of Anilkumar Dwarkaprasad Modani Vs. The Dcit Asst. Year : 2013-14

Housing Colony Circle-2(1)(1) v/s. Chavaj, Bharuch 392 002 Vadodara (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./PAN:ACNPM 0273 C अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Hemant Suthar, AR Revenue by : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 12/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 आदेश/O R D E R PER MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR

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

DCIT, CIR.4(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. LALITBHAI JAYANTIBHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

house and bonds are mentioned in the return of income itself. These facts also prove that the appellant and his partner are genuine confirming party 5.6 One more reason for making additions by the A.O. is that as the Banakhat dated 29.04.2005 has been held as null & void. Therefore, the appellant was neither the owner of the capital asset

DCIT, CIR, 4(2), AHMEDABAD vs. BHARATKUMAR BABUBHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

house and bonds are mentioned in the return of income itself. These facts also prove that the appellant and his partner are genuine confirming party 5.6 One more reason for making additions by the A.O. is that as the Banakhat dated 29.04.2005 has been held as null & void. Therefore, the appellant was neither the owner of the capital asset