THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

house property qua the properties held as stock in trade on account of deemed rental income. 6.4 As the assessee succeeds on the reasoning as elaborated in the preceding paragraph, therefore we are not inclined to adjudicate the other contentions raised by the Ld.AR for the assessee. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA Nos.37-38/AHD/2021 A.Y.s

SHRI BARFANI DADAJI BUILDCON,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Shri Barfani Dadaji Buildcon Vs. Ito, Ward-4(2)(5) Survey No.1-3-4, Hl Patel House Ahmedabad. Nr.Mahakali Mandir Mouje, Bhada Ahmedabad 380 060. Pan : Acpfs 7840 D

House Ahmedabad. Nr.Mahakali Mandir Mouje, Bhada Ahmedabad 380 060. PAN : ACPFS 7840 D (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Sanjay R. Shah, CA : Shri Arvind Kumbhare, Sr.DR Revenue by सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 24/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 29/09/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश PER MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal 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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

House, Opp. Central Circle-1(4), Pakwan-II, S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad Bodakdev, Ahmedabad-380054 [PAN No.AAGCM4615E] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T.A. No.1702/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mahalaxmi Infracontract Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner of 816-817, Binori B Square-III, Income Tax, Nr. Tradebulls, Sindhu Bhavan Central Circle-1(4), Road, Ahmedabad-380054 Ahmedabad [PAN No.AAGCM4615E] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Dhinal Shah

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE) -1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

House, Opp. Central Circle-1(4), Pakwan-II, S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad Bodakdev, Ahmedabad-380054 [PAN No.AAGCM4615E] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T.A. No.1702/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mahalaxmi Infracontract Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner of 816-817, Binori B Square-III, Income Tax, Nr. Tradebulls, Sindhu Bhavan Central Circle-1(4), Road, Ahmedabad-380054 Ahmedabad [PAN No.AAGCM4615E] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Dhinal Shah

MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

House, Opp. Central Circle-1(4), Pakwan-II, S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad Bodakdev, Ahmedabad-380054 [PAN No.AAGCM4615E] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T.A. No.1702/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mahalaxmi Infracontract Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner of 816-817, Binori B Square-III, Income Tax, Nr. Tradebulls, Sindhu Bhavan Central Circle-1(4), Road, Ahmedabad-380054 Ahmedabad [PAN No.AAGCM4615E] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Dhinal Shah

NAVRANGPURA ORGANISERS & DEV. PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

Housing Society Ltd., Vibhag- 2, (3) (A) Smt. Satyavatiben Jaigopal, (B) Shri Chimanlal Jaigopa!, (C) Shri Nandlal Jaigopal, & (D) Shri Sanjaybhai Chimanlal in respect of Kalhaar Exotica Project. Admittedly, the bills in question were raised by the appellant and these are dated 31.03.2006.. These bills have ' been discovered by the department in the 'computer hard disc seized from

NAVRATNA ORGANISERS & DEV. PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENT. CIRCLE 1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

Housing Society Ltd., Vibhag- 2, (3) (A) Smt. Satyavatiben Jaigopal, (B) Shri Chimanlal Jaigopa!, (C) Shri Nandlal Jaigopal, & (D) Shri Sanjaybhai Chimanlal in respect of Kalhaar Exotica Project. Admittedly, the bills in question were raised by the appellant and these are dated 31.03.2006.. These bills have ' been discovered by the department in the 'computer hard disc seized from

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SANJAY KISHANLAL BISHNOI,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

69C of the Act holding that when peak deficit is brought to tax in A.Y. 2011-12 , the same has to be considered while computing the deficit of peak of cash in A.Y. 2015-16 without appreciating that: (a) Deficit in cash in A.Y. 2011-12 was occasioned due to outflow of cash; (b) When the cash has been expended

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SANJAY KISHANLAL BISHNOI,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

69C of the Act holding that when peak deficit is brought to tax in A.Y. 2011-12 , the same has to be considered while computing the deficit of peak of cash in A.Y. 2015-16 without appreciating that: (a) Deficit in cash in A.Y. 2011-12 was occasioned due to outflow of cash; (b) When the cash has been expended

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SANKALP ORGANISERS PVT LTD , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

House, B/h. Rajpath Club, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad- 380054, Gujarat PANACZFS2243J (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.(SS)A No. 47 to 52/Ahd/2023 and Ors. A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2018-19 Page No 3 Sankalp Organizers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT & Ors. Assessee Represented: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT-DR & Shri B.P. Srivastava

SANKALP VENTURE LLP,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

House, B/h. Rajpath Club, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad- 380054, Gujarat PANACZFS2243J (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.(SS)A No. 47 to 52/Ahd/2023 and Ors. A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2018-19 Page No 3 Sankalp Organizers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT & Ors. Assessee Represented: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT-DR & Shri B.P. Srivastava

SANKALP ORGANISERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

House, B/h. Rajpath Club, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad- 380054, Gujarat PANACZFS2243J (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.(SS)A No. 47 to 52/Ahd/2023 and Ors. A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2018-19 Page No 3 Sankalp Organizers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT & Ors. Assessee Represented: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT-DR & Shri B.P. Srivastava

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD vs. SANKALP VENTURE LLP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

House, B/h. Rajpath Club, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad- 380054, Gujarat PANACZFS2243J (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.(SS)A No. 47 to 52/Ahd/2023 and Ors. A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2018-19 Page No 3 Sankalp Organizers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT & Ors. Assessee Represented: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT-DR & Shri B.P. Srivastava

ISMAIL ABDULAZIZ LAKHANI,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: the same were transferred through registered broker, on the floor of the recognized stock exchange, after suffering Security Transaction Tax and ultimately settled through proper banking channel) as unaccounted income under Section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.1,51,12,000/-.

69C of the Act amounting to Rs.3,02,240/- to the income of the appellant. 5. Your Appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend and withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. The solitary issue in the present appeal relates to long capital gain earned by the assessee during the impugned year on sale of shares

THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE, MEHSANA vs. SHRI UMESH VADILAL KHAMAR, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

69C of the Act, if no satisfactory explanation of the sources of income/receipts for making such expenses is provided. However, in the case of the appellant, the appellant had disclosed the profit of Rs. 16,01,000/- in the same statement which was obviously out of the sale of the vegetable items which were claimed to be sold for Rs.1

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-11,, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI UMANG HIRALAL THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member)

property appreciating the facts of the case and the materials brought on record by the AO. (1.2) The Ld. CIT[A]-XVI, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in accepting the contention of the assessee that the amount of unexplained income has already been offered for tax without appreciating that the assessee could not substantiate its claim

SHRI UMANG H. THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,WARD-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member)

property appreciating the facts of the case and the materials brought on record by the AO. (1.2) The Ld. CIT[A]-XVI, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in accepting the contention of the assessee that the amount of unexplained income has already been offered for tax without appreciating that the assessee could not substantiate its claim