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

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property. The AO accordingly added Rs.10,93,898/- under that head and also initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A

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

section 270A of the Act. It be so held now. 3. As is evident from the perusal of the grounds raised before us, the solitary issue in the present appeal relates to treating an amount of Rs.17,08,908/-as assessee’s income from house property

KRUNAL SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

270A(9) of the Act so as to justify the levy of penalty in terms of the said Section on the assessee. 9. The facts of the case are that the assessee had claimed deduction of capital gains earned u/s.54F of the Act by making investment in a new property and when doing so had claimed ITA No.1285/Ahd/2025 [Krunal Sanghvi

YASH ASHITBHAI VASHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1476/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Yash Ashitbhai Vashi The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ E/1, Pranav Apartment Ward-1, V/S. Shreyas Tekra International Taxation Ambawadi Ahmedabad-380 014 Ahmedabad – 380 015 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aiipv 9386 Q (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : None (Written Submission) Revenue By : Shri Waghe Prasadrao, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24 /02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26 /02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

270A(9) of the Act for misreporting of income were initiated. Yash Ashitbhai Vashi vs. The ITO Asst. Year : 2018-19 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of deduction under Section 54, as the new property was registered solely in the name of the assessee’s mother, Smt. Heenaben Vashi

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

house property at Flat No. 702, Shree Homes, Gota, Ahmedabad, by making payment on 18.06.2018, and claimed exemption under section 54 of the Act to that extent. 3. The Assessing Officer, however, accepted the indexed cost of acquisition based only on the value stated in the sale deed, i.e. Rs.4,79,325/-, and disallowed the claim of stamp duty

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD., SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

270A of the IT Act. 5.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the charging of interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the ground of appeal either before

DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

270A of the IT Act. 5.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the charging of interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the ground of appeal either before

DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

270A of the IT Act. 5.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the charging of interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the ground of appeal either before

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD., SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

270A of the IT Act. 5.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the charging of interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the ground of appeal either before

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

house property and included in the assessee’s total income, was correct.” 9.1. Further the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd., 343 ITR 245 wherein the “loss on account of non-recovery of loan given to employees was treated as loss incidental to business activity, then the interest on such loan falls within

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

house property and included in the assessee’s total income, was correct.” 9.1. Further the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd., 343 ITR 245 wherein the “loss on account of non-recovery of loan given to employees was treated as loss incidental to business activity, then the interest on such loan falls within

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

house property and included in the assessee’s total income, was correct.” 9.1. Further the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd., 343 ITR 245 wherein the “loss on account of non-recovery of loan given to employees was treated as loss incidental to business activity, then the interest on such loan falls within

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

house property and included in the assessee’s total income, was correct.” 9.1. Further the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd., 343 ITR 245 wherein the “loss on account of non-recovery of loan given to employees was treated as loss incidental to business activity, then the interest on such loan falls within

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

house property and included in the assessee’s total income, was correct.” 9.1. Further the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd., 343 ITR 245 wherein the “loss on account of non-recovery of loan given to employees was treated as loss incidental to business activity, then the interest on such loan falls within

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

house property and included in the assessee’s total income, was correct.” 9.1. Further the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd., 343 ITR 245 wherein the “loss on account of non-recovery of loan given to employees was treated as loss incidental to business activity, then the interest on such loan falls within

RAKESHKUMAR MAHENDRAKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee stand dismissed, and the order of the CIT(Appeals) is hereby affirmed in toto

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

House (admitted by the assessee), Rs. 50,00,000/- from Rancharda Land, and Rs.1,81,75,387/- from Mulsana Land. The balance Rs. 12,22,36,163/- was held to be unexplained money or investment. The total assessed income was assessed at Rs.14,73,11,550/-, and penalty proceedings under sections 271AAB and 270A were initiated. 5. In appeal before

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RAKESHKUMAR MAHENDRAKUMAR SHAH , AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee stand dismissed, and the order of the CIT(Appeals) is hereby affirmed in toto

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

House (admitted by the assessee), Rs. 50,00,000/- from Rancharda Land, and Rs.1,81,75,387/- from Mulsana Land. The balance Rs. 12,22,36,163/- was held to be unexplained money or investment. The total assessed income was assessed at Rs.14,73,11,550/-, and penalty proceedings under sections 271AAB and 270A were initiated. 5. In appeal before

MUKESH CHHOTELAL GUPTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Shri Mukesh Chhotelal Gupta The Dcit, Cir.(1)(1) Gupta Nivas Vs. Ahmedabad. Chandkheda Sabarmati Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Ablpg 9729 N (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, Ar : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/08/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

house property and capital gains. The return of income was filed on 20.07.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 49,05,370/-. Notice under section 143(2) was served on 23.09.2019 and notices under section 142(1) were thereafter issued calling for details on the limited scrutiny issue. 2.2 As recorded by the AO, a perusal of Form 26AS revealed interest

OMSHRI DEVPROCON LIMITED,KALOL, GANDHINAGAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2018-19

House, Circle – 3(1)(1), Opp. Aranya Farm, Ahmedabad. Near Electrotherm, Shilaj-Palodiya Road, Vs. Palodiya, Kalol, Gandhinagar – 382 115. Gujarat. [PAN – AACCD 1788 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 12.03.2025 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is filed