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

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

SWASTIK DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-2018 Swastik Developers The Ito, Ward-3(3)(5), 21, Swastik House Vs. Ahmedabad. B/H.Sardar Patel Stadium Ahmedabad. Pan : Acyfs 0641 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Prashant Shrivastav, Ar Assessee By : Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/08/2025

House Vs. Ahmedabad. B/h.Sardar Patel Stadium Ahmedabad. PAN : ACYFS 0641 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Prashant Shrivastav, AR Assessee by : Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.DR Revenue by सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 07/08/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश PER MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee

DIPAK BALUBHAI PATEL - HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18. I.T.A No. 942/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 2 Dipak Balubhai Patel-HUF vs. ITO 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Karta of HUF who derived income from House Property

LALITADEVI N. TIBREWALA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 318/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Lalitadevi N. Tibrewala, Pr. Commissioner Of 6, Professor Colony, Vs. Income Tax, Nr. Vijay Cross Roads, Ahmedabad-5 Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aappt0073M

house was constructed on or before 4th March 2011, a date much before the transfer of the property in dispute i.e. 27-05-2011. Accordingly, the PCIT was of the view that the assessee is not eligible for exemption/deduction under section 54 of the Act against the sale of the property dated 27th of May 2011. However, the AO without

NITABEN GIRISHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, while upholding the validity of reopening, we set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) on merits and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication in accordance with law

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Nitaben Girishbhai Patel The Ito, Ward-3(3)(2) 33/B, Swi Park, Private Plot Vejalpur Madhuvrund Society Ahmedabad. Ghatlodiya, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aappp 5738 F (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Assessee By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

house property of Rs.50,400/-, had invested Rs.19,68,683/- in shares of M/s Kushal Ltd., a fundamentally weak company with no worthwhile credentials. The AO noted that such investment did not commensurate with the assessee’s known sources of income. Further, according to the AO, the movement in the share price of M/s Kushal Ltd. was highly abnormal, where

SHRI NARENDRA B. PATEL,,SABARKANTHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, HIMATNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3153/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Narendra B. Patel, I.T.O., 592, Pampaliva Vas, Vs. Ward-2, Moyad, Himatnagar. Sabarkantha-383110. Pan: Asupp6989M

House 6 DevaDhai Patel Bank of 006906 10,41,488/- India. Salal 1/3/201 1 12.5 The assessee in support of the impugned transaction as discussed above has furnished the confirmation from the parties along with their PAN numbers and party wise/ date wise payment to vendor along with cheque details. Accordingly the assessee, contended that the impugned transactions were carried

SURESHBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL,VADODARA vs. ITO - WARD 1(2)(5), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 255-256/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-13 Sureshbhai Prabhudas Patel, D.C.I.T. Opp Parbadi Padra Road, Vs. Central Circle-2(1) Samiyala Village, Ahmedabad. Vadodara-390002. Pan: Atypp6249H

house property within the stipulated time provided under the provisions of section 54F(1) of the Act. Thus we are of the view that principles laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka are directly applicable in the given facts and circumstances and therefore we hold that the assessee cannot be deprived of the benefit of exemption under

SURESHBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL,VADODARA vs. ITO - WARD 1(2)(5), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 255-256/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-13 Sureshbhai Prabhudas Patel, D.C.I.T. Opp Parbadi Padra Road, Vs. Central Circle-2(1) Samiyala Village, Ahmedabad. Vadodara-390002. Pan: Atypp6249H

house property within the stipulated time provided under the provisions of section 54F(1) of the Act. Thus we are of the view that principles laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka are directly applicable in the given facts and circumstances and therefore we hold that the assessee cannot be deprived of the benefit of exemption under

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

ACIT CC 2(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. AISHA DHIRAJ GOGIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result: 50. To summarize the final outcome:

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha["ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" एवं "ी नरे" साद िस!ा, लेखा सद" के सम#।]

69A on account of the on-money received in "Earth Erita" property sale transaction. 3. Aggrieved by the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the majority of the additions made by the AO, the Revenue has come up in appeals before this Tribunal, whereas, the assessees, in turn, have filed cross-objections, primarily on the legal ground challenging

TEJAS C. JOSHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

house property, business income and other sources. For the Asst. Year 2011-12, assessee filed its original Return of Income on 07-07-2012 declaring total income of Rs.17,54,560/-. As per information available with the Department, the assessee has received credit entry amounting to Rs.4,05,553/- of his minor child and not clubbed the same income

VIJAYKUMAR UKABHAI PATEL,MEHSANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 1, MEHSANA, MEHSANA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

House No. 89, Sanskar Villa, Ward-1, Nr. Raghav Gas Agency, Vijapur, Mehsana Gujarat-382870 [PAN No.DPRPP8338P] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Sulabh Padshah, AR Respondent by: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR 11.12.2025 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 16.12.2025 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order

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

ITO-WD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. AVS CORPORATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

housing project. The Assessing Officer was also of the opinion that the assessee firm was involved in availing accommodation entries through entry operators. Based on the evidences found during the search/survey, the Assessing Officer concluded that the receipts recorded by the Shri Gautam shah in the excel sheet found from his pen drive were nothing but unaccounted cash receipts

ITO-WD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. AVS CORPORATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

housing project. The Assessing Officer was also of the opinion that the assessee firm was involved in availing accommodation entries through entry operators. Based on the evidences found during the search/survey, the Assessing Officer concluded that the receipts recorded by the Shri Gautam shah in the excel sheet found from his pen drive were nothing but unaccounted cash receipts

ITO-WD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. AVS CORPORATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

housing project. The Assessing Officer was also of the opinion that the assessee firm was involved in availing accommodation entries through entry operators. Based on the evidences found during the search/survey, the Assessing Officer concluded that the receipts recorded by the Shri Gautam shah in the excel sheet found from his pen drive were nothing but unaccounted cash receipts

SHALIGRAM INFRA PROJECTS LLP ( LTD. LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JCIT (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarit(Ss)A No.167/Ahd/2021 Asstt.Year : 2017-18 & Asst.Year : 2018-19 Shaligram Infra Projects Llp Vs. The Jcit (Osd) 4Th Floor, Office No.401-402 Central Cir.2(2) B/H. Dishman House Ahmedabad. Opp: Sankalp Grace Ii, Ambli Ahmedabad. Pan: Acpfs 7047 A It(Ss)A No.194,195 & 196/Ahd/2021 Asstt.Year : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 & Asst.Year : 2018-19 The Jcit (Osd) Vs. Shaligram Infra Projects Llp Central Cir.2(2) 4Th Floor, Office No.401-402 Ahmedabad. B/H. Dishman House Opp: Sankalp Grace Ii, Ambli Ahmedabad.

Property being Land and building in AY-2015-16 and 2016-17. Year wise detailed breakup of payment/ investment and The DCIT, Cent.Cir.Vs.Shaligram Infra Projects LLP (6 Appeals) 4 reference of seized incriminating material, on the basis of which the Special Auditor calculated such out of books investment to the extent of Rs.60,85,42,590/- the on-money payment

ARUNABEN KISHORKUMAR MANDALIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT, CENTRAL, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1052 To 1054/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Arunaben Kishorkumar Mandalia, The Principal बनामVs 12, Ashwamegh-Iii, Commissioner Of . 132 Feet Ring Road, Income Tax (Central), Satellite, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Ablpm2848Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ( ""यथ" /Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M K Patel, With Shri Vartik Choksi, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit.Dr

house properties given on rent and income from other sources such as saving interest, interest from bonds etc. were earned. No business is carried on by me during the year 2. Details of copy of Return of Income filed by you for the relevant Assessment Years along with copy of P&L a/c., Balance Sheet, Capital A/c., Auditor's report