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)

unexplained investment. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs 84,000 made by the AO on account of income from house property

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)

unexplained investment. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs 84,000 made by the AO on account of income from house property

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)

unexplained investment. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs 84,000 made by the AO on account of income from house property

SHRI UMANG HIRALAL THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2150/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Dharmadev House, Income-Tax, Shyamal Cross Road, Satellite, Central Circle 1(1), Ahmedabad – 380015 Ahmedabad Pan : Aavpt 8621 R आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2548/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. 305, Sahajanand Plaza, Bhatta Income-Tax, Ch Ar Rasta, Paldi, Ahmedabad Central Circle 1(1), Pan : Aavpt 8621 R Ahmedabad अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" यथ" िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, Cit-Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

property. 9. The ld.CIT(A) reduced the addition on account of unexplained investment in the residential house from Rs.2,31,936/- to Rs.2

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI UMANG H. THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2150/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Dharmadev House, Income-Tax, Shyamal Cross Road, Satellite, Central Circle 1(1), Ahmedabad – 380015 Ahmedabad Pan : Aavpt 8621 R आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2548/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. 305, Sahajanand Plaza, Bhatta Income-Tax, Ch Ar Rasta, Paldi, Ahmedabad Central Circle 1(1), Pan : Aavpt 8621 R Ahmedabad अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" यथ" िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, Cit-Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

property. 9. The ld.CIT(A) reduced the addition on account of unexplained investment in the residential house from Rs.2,31,936/- to Rs.2

KHYATI DILIPKUMAR DAVE,DUBAI vs. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1,INT.TAX.,AHM, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT,INDIA

In the result, Ground No. 1 with respect to the aforesaid addition is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

unexplained investment in immovable property, the CIT(A) observed that out of the aforesaid amount, a sum of Rs. 55,00,000/- had been sourced out of housing

VINIT BIPINCHANDRA SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3) (PREVIOUSLY WARD-5(2)(4)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

property other than the new asset, on the date of transferring of original asset. The law on this issue is specific. If the assessee owns more than one residential house, he will not be entitled to claim the benefit of deduction under Section 54F of the Act. The manner in which the residential house is utilised, i.e. whether

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI NITINBHAI RAMCHANDRA PATEL,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2005/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007 D.C.I.T, Nitinbhai Ramchandra Patel Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. Ambali Bopal Road, Ahmedabad. Arbaligam, Ahmedbad. Pan: Acrpp9175E

Housing society Ltd. and one pravin kumar dayaji thakkar. The position during the relevant financial year is not available. The Block bearing no. 77 is in the name of the assessee along with 2 other people. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering the submission made by the assessee allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under: On careful

SHRI GAURAV VINODBHAI MITRA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Ms.Annapurna Gupta

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT. Act as the immovable property is purchase from the loan taken from the two genuine parties. 2. Concealed Income on account of Sale of Immovable property of Rs. 37,00,000/-. Assesse's father and mother has jointly purchased the immovable property amounting Rs. 14,00,000/- in 1988 and later on assessee

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

housing loan available to the assessee but the same was not utilized for the purpose of the investment in the property. In this connection we note that the AO has made charts for different assessment years in which the assessee has sold different lands. These charts are available on pages 51 and 52 of the assessment order. The allegation that

NALINIBEN DIPAKBHAI PATEL,KHEDA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4,, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year : 2016-17 Naliniben Dipakbhai Patel The Ito, Ward-4 12A Narayan Nagar Vs Anand. Dakor Road, Kapadwanj Kheda 387 620. Pan : Agopp 2625 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2025

unexplained u/s 69A of the Act. 7. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,18,19,600/- u/s 69A of the Act, 8. The appellant craves the right to add to or niter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal," 3. The brief facts

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

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

SMT. DAXA NARESHBHAI SANTANI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(2),, AHMEDABAD

property of Rs. 6,00,000/- is treated unexplained investment U/s 69 of the I. T. Act. Therefore the same is added back in total income of the assessee. 4.2 - In this regard show cause notice issued on 29.11.2011, for reasonable opportunity given to the assessee, and hearing -was fixed on 05/12/2011, but could not complied

SHRI RAMSANGBHAI BACHUBHAI SOLANKI,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(3), , AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Years : 2011-12 Shri Ramsangbhai Bachubhai Solanki, Income-Tax Officer, 299, Rajput Vas, Darbar Vas, Vs Ward 7(3), Rethal, Tal: Sanand, Ahmedabad Dist. Ahmedabad- 382210 Pan : Bwgps 3056 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-:

house property by issuing cheque from Bank account and therefore additions made by learned A.O. and confirmed by learned CIT(A) requires to be deleted. 5. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant, the additions made by learned A.O. as income from other sources and confirmed by learned CIT(A)-3 which

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

KAVIT CORPORATION,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2)(3), VADODARA, VADODARA

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 922/Ahd/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Kavit Corporation, Income Tax Officer, बनामVs C/O. Subhashbhai Patel, Ward-1(2)(3), . 12, Vitthal Nagar Society, Vadodara. Opposite, Mental Hospital, Karelbaug, Vadodara-390018. Pan: Aalfk8619A

properties. The Ld. Sr. DR strongly supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The AO had made the addition of Rs.70,00,000/- in respect of unexplained investment in one land for the reason that he had information about one land transaction only and no compliance was made by the assessee