SHAMA AJAY PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(IT & TP), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shama Ajay Patel, Vs. 2, Chandroday Society, The Cit(It & Tp), Opp. Golden Triangle, Sp Ahmedabad Stadium Road, Navjivan Post, Ahmedabad-380014 Pan : Alxpp 5273 E अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It & Tp), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. "Cit(It & Tp)" For Short] Dated 08.02.2023, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit (It & Tp) Reads As Under:- “1. The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Passing Order U/S 263 Without Jurisdiction & Appropriate Powers Available Under The Act. It Is Submitted That The Order Passed U/S. 263 Is Bad In Law As A.O. Has Neither Committed Any Error Nor It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. It Be Held Now.

long term capital gain earned. All evidences substantiating the aforesaid explanation being her computation of income, copy of bank statement of NRE account, broker’s note, and details of all scrips share trading were all filed to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was satisfied with the reply of the assessee and accepted the short term capital gain earned from

HEMANTKUMAR MANSUKHLAL SONI, HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Hemantkumar Mansukhlal Soni, Huf Ito, Ward-1(3)(1) 2254 Mahurat Pole Vs Ahmedabad. Manekchowk Ahmedabad-380001. Pan : Aabhh 1182 F (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Divatia, Ar & Shri Samir Vora, Ar Revenue By : Ms.Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Guptathis Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 27.04.203 15.3.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised In The Appeal Are As Under:

long term capital gain earned and treated the same as exempt under section 10(38) of the Act, which was denied by the AO, whose order was confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). This addition was made to the income of the assessee in re-assessment proceedings in order passed under section 147 of the Act. The reassessment

NRUPAL NARESHCHANDRA RAJA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings, the assessee had specifically submitted that during the impugned year under consideration, the assessee had not earned any exempt Long term capital gains

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. BHAVESHKUMAR GIRISHBHAI BHANDARI, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

Appeal is allowed in ITA 978/Ahd/2025 and ITA\n978/Ahd/2025 as well

Long-Term Capital Gain of Rs. 14,63,004/-, which was\nclaimed as exempt under section 10(38) of the Act. The AO asked the\nassessee to explain why the LTCG should not be treated as bogus. In\nresponse, the assessee filed a reply dated 13.03.2023 and subsequently\nanother reply on 16.03.2023, contending that the notice was short-timed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. GIRISHKUMAR AMRATLAL BHANDARI HUF, HIMATNAGAR, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed and the order of\nthe Assessing Officer is restored

Long-Term Capital Gain of Rs.14,63,004/-, which was\nclaimed as exempt under section 10(38) of the Act. The AO asked the\nassessee to explain why the LTCG should not be treated as bogus. In\nresponse, the assessee filed a reply dated 13.03.2023 and subsequently\nanother reply on 16.03.2023, contending that the notice was short-timed and\nthat

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. BHAVESHKUMAR GIRISHBHAI BHANDARI, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed and the order of\nthe Assessing Officer is restored

Long-Term Capital Gain of Rs.14,63,004/-, which was\nclaimed as exempt under section 10(38) of the Act. The AO asked the\nassessee to explain why the LTCG should not be treated as bogus. In\nresponse, the assessee filed a reply dated 13.03.2023 and subsequently\nanother reply on 16.03.2023, contending that the notice was short-timed and\nthat

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#।]

Long Term Capital Gains under section 10(38) of the Act, treating the underlying shares as "penny stocks"; and (iv) Addition on account of alleged on-money received on the sale of property in the Earth Erita project. These additions were made based on material allegedly found during the search action, including digital data like WhatsApp chats retrieved from third

RACHNA SANJAY SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT, AHMEDABAD -1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri/St.R. Senthil Kumar & Narendra Prasad Sinhaasst.Year :2014-2015 Rachana Sanjay Shah The Pr.Cit-1 72, Tapovan Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Manekbaug Hall Ambawadi Ahmedabad 380015. Pan : Amdps 6571 P

reassessment order, the ld.Pr.CIT found that the assessee had earned bogus long term ld.Pr.CIT found that the assessee had earned bogus long term ld.Pr.CIT found that the assessee had earned bogus long term capital gain

HASMUKH UGARCHAND GADHECHA, HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.591/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Hasmukh Ugarchand The Ito बनाम/ Gadhecha, Huf Ward-5(2)(2) V/S. 3Rd Floor, Anjalee House Ahmedabad – 380 015 Cg Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaahg 7194 K (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak R. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: 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 26/12/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-2014. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Hasmukh Ugarchand Gadhecha, Huf Vs. Ito Asstt.Year : 2013-14 2 “1. That The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Law & In The Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Order Of The Ao In Reopening Assessment U/S.147 Of The Act.

long term capital gains and nothing more. The AO, in the reasons recorded under the heading "Enquiries made by the AO as a sequel to information collected/received," has stated that “on examination of return it Hasmukh Ugarchand Gadhecha, HUF vs. ITO Asstt.Year : 2013-14 9 was found that the assessee had shown exempt income of Rs. 18367048/- therefore no further

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Long Term Capital Gain” (“LTCG” for short) in the hands of the assessee worked out at Rs. 65,28,303/-. Since assessee had already declared LTCG of Rs. 16,28,303/- in the return of income, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 49,00,000/- in respect of undisclosed capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under Section 271AAA

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Long Term Capital Gain” (“LTCG” for short) in the hands of the assessee worked out at Rs. 65,28,303/-. Since assessee had already declared LTCG of Rs. 16,28,303/- in the return of income, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 49,00,000/- in respect of undisclosed capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under Section 271AAA

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Long Term Capital Gain” (“LTCG” for short) in the hands of the assessee worked out at Rs. 65,28,303/-. Since assessee had already declared LTCG of Rs. 16,28,303/- in the return of income, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 49,00,000/- in respect of undisclosed capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under Section 271AAA

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Long Term Capital Gain” (“LTCG” for short) in the hands of the assessee worked out at Rs. 65,28,303/-. Since assessee had already declared LTCG of Rs. 16,28,303/- in the return of income, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 49,00,000/- in respect of undisclosed capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under Section 271AAA

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Long Term Capital Gain” (“LTCG” for short) in the hands of the assessee worked out at Rs. 65,28,303/-. Since assessee had already declared LTCG of Rs. 16,28,303/- in the return of income, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 49,00,000/- in respect of undisclosed capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under Section 271AAA

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Long Term Capital Gain” (“LTCG” for short) in the hands of the assessee worked out at Rs. 65,28,303/-. Since assessee had already declared LTCG of Rs. 16,28,303/- in the return of income, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 49,00,000/- in respect of undisclosed capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under Section 271AAA

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Long Term Capital Gain” (“LTCG” for short) in the hands of the assessee worked out at Rs. 65,28,303/-. Since assessee had already declared LTCG of Rs. 16,28,303/- in the return of income, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 49,00,000/- in respect of undisclosed capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under Section 271AAA

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Long Term Capital Gain” (“LTCG” for short) in the hands of the assessee worked out at Rs. 65,28,303/-. Since assessee had already declared LTCG of Rs. 16,28,303/- in the return of income, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 49,00,000/- in respect of undisclosed capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under Section 271AAA

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Long Term Capital Gain” (“LTCG” for short) in the hands of the assessee worked out at Rs. 65,28,303/-. Since assessee had already declared LTCG of Rs. 16,28,303/- in the return of income, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 49,00,000/- in respect of undisclosed capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under Section 271AAA