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

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

House Property [as per Return of Income] Rs. 10,34,525/- B. Business Income [as per Return of income] Rs.14,81,24,50,439/- Add: Additions / disallowances as discussed above ITA No. 162/Ahd/2021 (Zydus Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT) A.Y.– 2016-17 - 7 – 1. Transfer pricing adjustment on account Rs. 10,29,60,436/- of corporate guarantee (as per Para

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”).

reassessment proceedings were initiated on account of certain unexplained cash and cheque deposits in the bank account of the assessee. Smt. Liz Hemangbhai Bhatt vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2008-09 The AO made additions under Sections 68 and 69, treating the cash deposits as unexplained cash credits and the cheque deposits as unexplained investment. 3. Aggrieved by the order

TRUPTIBEN NILANGKUMAR TRIVEDI,ANAND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyaltruptiben Nilangkumar The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Trivedi, Ward-1, 2/A, Vivekanand Wadi, Anand. Opp Dena Parivar Society, Vidyanagar Road, Anand-388001. [Pan :Agipt7745 F] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Karan Sukhramani, Ar Respondent By: Shri Ravindra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.11.2025

reassessment proceeding despite the fact that Notice under section 148 of the Act dated 31.08.2022 is void and bad in law as it was issued without DIN. 5 In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding addition on account of alleged unexplained money amounting

AMISH UMESH JANI,THANE, MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(5), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

house in Ahmedabad, she received the various notice and orders. Thus, the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in not presenting the appeal within time." The plea of the appellant is not acceptable as the appellant has not submitted any documentary evidence in support of her claims. In absence of any such documentary evidence, the delay in filing the appeal

GOVINDBHAI HIRABHAI BHARVAD,VASNA AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, INCOME TAX OFFICE, AAYAKAR BHAWAN VEJALPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

reassessment order passed under section 147 of I.T.A No. 341/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 2 Govindbhai HIrabhai Bharvad vs. ITO the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual deriving income under the head House Property

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

ANKUR CHANDRAKANT PATEL,MEHSANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

house property, proprietary business in the name of M/s. Tractor Trading Co. and other sources. For the year under consideration, the Assessee has filed his original return of income on 29.10.2019 showing total income of Rs.11,77,940/-. Subsequently, the case of the Assessee was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act as per notice u/s. 148 dated 29.03.2023. The Assessing

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

SHRI SHIVAJIRAO R.CHAVAN,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2001-02 Shivajirao R. Chavan Vs. Ito, Ward-13(2) M-327, Sector 4, K.K. Nagar Ahmedabad. Opp: Water Tank, Ghalodia Ahmedabad.

reassessment proceedings was initiated on the assessee, resulting in various additions being made to his income. Additions confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) have been challenged before us in various grounds raised before us. 5. The ground no.1 raised by the assessee reads as under: “1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming

RINKI SHASHIKANT GANDHI,VADODARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2011-12

reassessment u/s 147 is invalid with wrong additions. Ground 6 The appellant requests the right to amend or add to the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing, should any new issues arise or if further details need to be presented.” 3. The assessee’s case was reopened as the assessee has sold immoveable property on more than

DILIP MOHANDAS DEVANI,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our above directions

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings were initiated under section 147 of the Act. In response to notice issued by the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed return of income on 27.05.2019 declaring total income of ₹1,690/- and claiming a long-term capital loss of ₹8,70,727/- after taking into account indexed cost of acquisition, cost of improvement, and after claiming exemption under

SEJALBEN PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR.CIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Sejalben Patel The Pr.Cit-1 1049, Kantvalue Faliyu Vs. Vadodara. At & Po-Karkhadi Tal. Padra, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Drhpp 9550 D Asstt.Year : 2018-19 Binitaben Sandipkumar Patel The Pr.Cit-1 Javla, Chotra Pase Vs. Vadodara. Savli, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Cwopp 4609 Q (Applicant) (Responent)

Housing Society Ltd., Karelibaug, Vadodara, valued at Rs.60,00,000/-. Total AGR (Annual Gross Register) value amounted to Rs.3,69,83,100/-, and a corresponding TDS credit of Rs.2,40,000/- under section 194-IA was reported. ITA No.701 & 702/Ahd/2025 3 3.2 The assessee, in response to notice under section 148, filed her return of income on 28.04.2022. The return

BINITABEN SANDIPKUMAR PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR.CIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Sejalben Patel The Pr.Cit-1 1049, Kantvalue Faliyu Vs. Vadodara. At & Po-Karkhadi Tal. Padra, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Drhpp 9550 D Asstt.Year : 2018-19 Binitaben Sandipkumar Patel The Pr.Cit-1 Javla, Chotra Pase Vs. Vadodara. Savli, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Cwopp 4609 Q (Applicant) (Responent)

Housing Society Ltd., Karelibaug, Vadodara, valued at Rs.60,00,000/-. Total AGR (Annual Gross Register) value amounted to Rs.3,69,83,100/-, and a corresponding TDS credit of Rs.2,40,000/- under section 194-IA was reported. ITA No.701 & 702/Ahd/2025 3 3.2 The assessee, in response to notice under section 148, filed her return of income on 28.04.2022. The return

SHANTABEN JOITARAM PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(2) (OLD WARD-5(3)(3)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

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

house for a consideration of Rs.42,00,000/- Since the assessee has not filed the Return of Income and made investment in immovable property of Rs.42,00,000/-, the assessment was reopened by issuing a notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 2.1. During the course of reassessment

GOPI SAURABH PATWA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT (IT & TP) NOW PCIT-3, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.775 & 776/Ahd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2017-18 Respectively Gopi Saurabh Patwa The Cit (It & Tp), A-26 Aryaman Bungalows बनाम/ Now Pcit-3 Next To Railway Crossing- Ahmedabad V/S. -Thaltej-Shilaj Road, Shilaj Ahmedabad – 380 059 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Agrpp 8059 P (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri H. Phani Raju, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

housing unit was purchased by her parents, however, for the purpose of inheritance assessee’s name was added. 2.4. For AY 2017-18, the assessee similarly submitted various documents related to the purchase of property, contending that no cash payments were made and demanding copies of the data retrieved during the search of Murlidhar Trivedi's premises. The assessee compared

GOPI SAURABH PATWA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(IT & TP) NOW PCIT-3, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.775 & 776/Ahd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2017-18 Respectively Gopi Saurabh Patwa The Cit (It & Tp), A-26 Aryaman Bungalows बनाम/ Now Pcit-3 Next To Railway Crossing- Ahmedabad V/S. -Thaltej-Shilaj Road, Shilaj Ahmedabad – 380 059 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Agrpp 8059 P (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri H. Phani Raju, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

housing unit was purchased by her parents, however, for the purpose of inheritance assessee’s name was added. 2.4. For AY 2017-18, the assessee similarly submitted various documents related to the purchase of property, contending that no cash payments were made and demanding copies of the data retrieved during the search of Murlidhar Trivedi's premises. The assessee compared

ROMABEN KEYUR THAKORE LEGAL HEIR OF LATE ANANDIBEN JITENDRABHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A), Who Has Confirmed The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer By Observing As Follows:

reassessment proceedings, vide submission dated 04.05.2023, as well as during the appellate proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee contended that purchase of under construction house should be considered as construction house (to be completed within 3 years) and not as purchase of house within 2 years. The assessee in this case had invested net sale consideration in an under

SAURABH SUMANT PATWA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT-3, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

housing unit was purchased by her parents, however, for the purpose of inheritance assessee’s name was added. 2.4. For AY 2017-18, the assessee similarly submitted various documents related to the purchase of property, contending that no cash payments were made and demanding copies of the data retrieved during the search of Murlidhar Trivedi's premises. The assessee compared