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)

Section 33 of Revenue Act the appellant has incurred several i.e. expenses which were paid by Shri Jaswantbhai D. Patel. Further with regard to the land leveling and development expenses of Rs.65 lakhs it is submitted that Shri Jaswantbhai D. Patel has spent this amount during the period 2000 to 2005 and the land leveling work carried by Shri Dineshbhai

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)

Section 33 of Revenue Act the appellant has incurred several i.e. expenses which were paid by Shri Jaswantbhai D. Patel. Further with regard to the land leveling and development expenses of Rs.65 lakhs it is submitted that Shri Jaswantbhai D. Patel has spent this amount during the period 2000 to 2005 and the land leveling work carried by Shri Dineshbhai

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)

Section 33 of Revenue Act the appellant has incurred several i.e. expenses which were paid by Shri Jaswantbhai D. Patel. Further with regard to the land leveling and development expenses of Rs.65 lakhs it is submitted that Shri Jaswantbhai D. Patel has spent this amount during the period 2000 to 2005 and the land leveling work carried by Shri Dineshbhai

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)

Section 33 of Revenue Act the appellant has incurred several i.e. expenses which were paid by Shri Jaswantbhai D. Patel. Further with regard to the land leveling and development expenses of Rs.65 lakhs it is submitted that Shri Jaswantbhai D. Patel has spent this amount during the period 2000 to 2005 and the land leveling work carried by Shri Dineshbhai

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

69,810/– as against the returned income of Mohit Vijaykumar Gupta vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2021-22 3 ₹10,60,37,350/–. The additions made by the AO included (i) ₹21,03,258/– under the head “Long-term Capital Gain”, (ii) ₹7,43,199/– as deemed rent on five flats situated at Mumbai, and (iii) ₹13,86,000/– as deemed

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

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

house, and therefore, it should be allowed the claim of the exemption under section 54F of the Act. The grounds raised before us, in this regard, are as under: “1. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in law in making addition of long term capital gain of Rs.1,08,69,338/- u/s.54F of the Act on the erroneous ground that

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

house property income, when the assessee claimed expenses relevant to leased out property as business expenditure as pointed out by the AO in the order, which resulted in double deduction. (7) Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to disallow the interest worked out on per formula given by him as against the amount worked

THE ACIT,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

house property income, when the assessee claimed expenses relevant to leased out property as business expenditure as pointed out by the AO in the order, which resulted in double deduction. (7) Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to disallow the interest worked out on per formula given by him as against the amount worked

VINODCHANDRA T PARIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 457/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Vinodchandra T. Parikh, I.T.O, 31, Shail, Vs. Ward-2(1)(2), Opp. Madhusudan House, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad.

section 54F. The essence of the said provision is whether the assessee who received capital gains has invested in a residential house. Once it is demonstrated that the consideration received on transfer has been invested either in purchasing a residential house or in construction of a residential house even though the transactions are not complete in all respects

SMT. LIZ HEMANGBHAI BHATT,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for non- prosecution

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2426/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-09 Smt.Liz Hemangbhai Bhatt The I.T.O. Ward 14 (2) बनाम/ 301, A Devprit Apartment Ahmedabad V/S. Nr.Bodakdev Cross Road Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Adtpb 9174 C (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : -None- Revenue By : Shri A.P. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Dated 09.08.2016, For The Assessment Year 2008-09, Arising Out Of The Reassessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Ward- 14(2), Ahmedabad (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”), Under Section 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

Section 69. The assessee contended that she was merely a joint holder, with her husband being the primary holder. CIT(A), considering the remand report, restricted the addition to 1/6th of the total deposits (Rs.19,52,408/-), as the bank account had six joint holders. On Ground No. 4: Disallowance of Expenses Against Commission Income 10. The AO disallowed expenses

NITU KUMARI MANISH KUMAR,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Nitu Kumari Manish Kumar The Ito, Ward-2(1)(2) Shreenath Bungalows Vs. Ahmedabad. Opp: Full Stop Society Motera, Chankheda Link Road Gujarat. Pan : Dvfpk 8773 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Nitin Pathak, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.Dr

section 69 in the hands of the assessee. The assessee’s claim that the entire investment was from her husband’s disclosed sources is a factual plea which ought to have been substantiated through documentary evidence. We note that the assessee did respond to the AO’s show cause and claimed the investment was entirely financed by her husband. However

DCIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ALPESHKUMAR C.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1908/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive In Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. Pan: Aeapp9489G

section 54F of the Act by observing that the commercial tax department has cancelled the TIN of the supplier of the different building material, the appellant owns more than one house property ITA nos.1908& 1991/AHD/2018 Asstt. Year 2011-12 11 on the date of sale and the capital gain arise from the different properties as claimed by the appellant

SANDIP B. PADSALA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) For Adjudication. 3. The Ld. Pr Cit Erred On Facts & In Law In Holding That The Assessing Officer Erred In Granting Deduction Of Interest Of Rs. 11,70,726/- Without Appreciating That The Appellant Had Not Claimed Deduction Of The Same While Preparing Return Of Income. The Appellant Craves Permission To Add, Alter, Amend Or Withdraw Any Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal Either Before Or During The Course Of Rearing Of The Appeal.”

sections 69, 69A and 69C being treated separately, because such deemed income is not income from salary, house property, profits

UDAY RAMESH NAYAK,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - INT. TAXATION, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

house property as unexplained and thereby making an addition u/s. 69 of the Act. 2. The learned DRP and the AO erred in fact and in law in making addition of Rs.13,72,952/- to the total income of the Appellant despite the fact that no such amount was paid by the Appellant. 3. The learned AO erred in fact

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHALIGRAM INFRA PROJECTS LLP , AHMEDABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

Housing Society Ltd. Shri Ashwin B Dudhat\nshows that he, along with his two brothers, who were members of the said\nsociety having rights over Bunglow/plot Nos.13,16 and 27 (vacant plot),\nreceived on-money payment from the assessee in consideration to their\nrelinquishment of rights on the said plots/bungalows admeasuring total of\n893 sq yard [Bungalow

ASHOK KUMAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, INT. TAX, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

section 69 of the Act is unlawful, bad in law and deserves to be deleted. 2. The DRP and AO failed to appreciate that the total investment made by the Appellant in a residential property is amounting to Rs.1,73,25,000/- out of which a sum of Rs.84,93,235/- was paid from housing

VINEETSINGH GULABSINGH RORE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

69 of the Act. Reason for Delay: The reason for the delay of 543 days in filing the appeal against the order under Section 263 is due to a lack of proper guidance and advice from my then-authorized representative, CA Ashesh Shah. CA Ashesh Shah has submitted an affidavit stating that ITA No.868/Ahd/2023 [Vineetsingh Gulabsingh Rore vs. PCIT