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

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 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

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

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

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

SHRI JITENDRA NARSINHBHAI TALPADA,,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble & "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Ito, Ward-6(1) Shri Jitendra Narsinhbhai Talpada53, Vadodara. Atmajyotinagar Society Vs. Nr. Tejas Vidyalaya, Ellora Park Vadodara 390 023. Pan : Aagpt 2465 A (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Ms.Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Deelipkumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07/01/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2020

house property income at Rs.20,35,116/- after giving deduction under section 24(a) of the Act at Rs.6,10,535/-, he made addition of Rs.14,24,581/-. In this way, total income of the assessee has been determined at Rs.22,03,058/-. Dissatisfied with this treatment, the assessee carried the matter in appeal. The ld.CIT(A) has dismissed

SHRI JITENDRA NARSINHBHAI TALPADA,,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, VADODARA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble & "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Ito, Ward-6(1) Shri Jitendra Narsinhbhai Talpada53, Vadodara. Atmajyotinagar Society Vs. Nr. Tejas Vidyalaya, Ellora Park Vadodara 390 023. Pan : Aagpt 2465 A (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Ms.Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Deelipkumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07/01/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2020

house property income at Rs.20,35,116/- after giving deduction under section 24(a) of the Act at Rs.6,10,535/-, he made addition of Rs.14,24,581/-. In this way, total income of the assessee has been determined at Rs.22,03,058/-. Dissatisfied with this treatment, the assessee carried the matter in appeal. The ld.CIT(A) has dismissed

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

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

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

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

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:

6 a revised return under section 139(4) of the Act on 5.11.2015 claiming deduction under section 54/54F of the Act. 12.1. In our considered opinion the lower authorities have not appreciated the facts properly and followed the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant [cited supra] wherein the dates and facts

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

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

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

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

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1285 & 1286/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & Ita No.1396 & 1397/Ahd/2018 Asstt.Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent House Ahmedabad. Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1327 & 1328/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1414 & 1415/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. Torrent House Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Choksi, With Shri Biren Shah, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Mohd. Usman, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/11/2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench

properties of the company including manufacturing facilities, research facilities and office premises. v. A minimum fixed asset cover of 1.1 times over these assets. vi. Net debt / EBIDTA to be not more than 4.5 times vii. Debt gearing not to exceed 1.65 times during the currency of facility. viii. Debt service cover ratio shall not be less than 1.33 times

CHUDABHAI LAXMNABHAI DESAI,,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD -6(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

property was held by the assessee less than 36 months. The land of the assessee situated at Chandlodia, Taluha-Ahmedabad City and the same is falling in municipal limits of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. Further, the Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, Government of Gujarat vide its notification No. KV/211/2006/AMN/902006/410/P dated 20"1 July, 2006 classified the Chandlodla Municipality as large