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

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed

8, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”], under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act"] for the assessment year 2017-18, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(2), Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “the AO”] under section

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)

8. Clause (a) to (f) thereon are specific instances of mis- reporting of income which attracts levy of penalty under the said subsection. It is, therefore, to be seen whether in the facts of the present case the assessee’s case could be said to fall under any of the sub-clauses mentioned in 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

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 as opposed to the assessee’s contention that they were merely recovery of common area

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

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

8,000 Other Miscellaneous Receipts 4,12,73,000 (This income is from other than above all account heads, major amount consists amount in respect of unclaimed security deposit, Earnest Money Deposit and Miscellaneous Deposits from Suppliers or Contractors which is un-disputed and lying pending for more than three years, and which, as per policy of management, not payable

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

8,000 Other Miscellaneous Receipts 4,12,73,000 (This income is from other than above all account heads, major amount consists amount in respect of unclaimed security deposit, Earnest Money Deposit and Miscellaneous Deposits from Suppliers or Contractors which is un-disputed and lying pending for more than three years, and which, as per policy of management, not payable

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

8,000 Other Miscellaneous Receipts 4,12,73,000 (This income is from other than above all account heads, major amount consists amount in respect of unclaimed security deposit, Earnest Money Deposit and Miscellaneous Deposits from Suppliers or Contractors which is un-disputed and lying pending for more than three years, and which, as per policy of management, not payable

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

8,000 Other Miscellaneous Receipts 4,12,73,000 (This income is from other than above all account heads, major amount consists amount in respect of unclaimed security deposit, Earnest Money Deposit and Miscellaneous Deposits from Suppliers or Contractors which is un-disputed and lying pending for more than three years, and which, as per policy of management, not payable

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

8,000 Other Miscellaneous Receipts 4,12,73,000 (This income is from other than above all account heads, major amount consists amount in respect of unclaimed security deposit, Earnest Money Deposit and Miscellaneous Deposits from Suppliers or Contractors which is un-disputed and lying pending for more than three years, and which, as per policy of management, not payable

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

8,000 Other Miscellaneous Receipts 4,12,73,000 (This income is from other than above all account heads, major amount consists amount in respect of unclaimed security deposit, Earnest Money Deposit and Miscellaneous Deposits from Suppliers or Contractors which is un-disputed and lying pending for more than three years, and which, as per policy of management, not payable

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-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

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

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

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

KIRANBHAI RAMANBHAI PATEL,NADIAD vs. THE ITO, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

section 115BBE of the Act. 6. Charging of Interest u/s 234A,234B,234C & 234D are unjustified. 7. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 270A is unjustified. Total tax effect Rs. 11,39,237/-” 3. The assessee filed return of income for assessment year 2017-18 on 24-07-2017 declaring total income of Rs. 1,49,52,380/-. The assessee filed

NARANBHAI SAMATBHAI BHARWAD THROUGH LEGAL HEIR DEVRAJBHAI NARANBHAI BHARWAD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Tr Senthil Kumar

property is Asst.Year 2017-18 - 3– not known. Furthermore, the appellant has not adduced any shred of cogent credible and contemporaneous evidence in support of the cash flow statement it has furnished for the period 2012-13 to 2015-16. During appeal no cash flow statement for the period 01.04.2016 to 08.11.2016 was adduced. The appellant is showing huge amount