RANJITSINH NARSINH VAGHELA,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, GANDHINAGAR

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

Bench: SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं/ITA No.451/Ahd/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2012-13\nRanjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela\n3337, Nr. Palaiya Mahakali\nMandir\nPethapur, Gandhinagar\nGandhinagar – 382 610\nबनाम /\nv/s.\nThe Income Tax Officer\nWard-3\nGandhinagar\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AFEPV 3269 D\n(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)\nAssessee by:\nShri Hardik Vora, Advocate\nRevenue by :\nShri R.N. Dso

10(37), which exempts capital gains arising from\nthe compulsory acquisition of agricultural land, including any compensation\nor consideration enhanced by courts. However, the CIT(A) held that the\ninterest on FDs made by the Civil Court does not qualify as \"compensation or\nenhanced consideration\" under the section's Explanation. The CIT(A) noted\nthat the provisions of Sections

ALANG STEEL RECYCLING PRIVATE LIMITED,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalalang Steel Recycling The Pr. Cit-1, Private Limited Vs. Ahmedabad – 380 015 Ground Floor, Shop No.G-1 Sukun-1, Bhilwara Circle Bhavnagar – 364 001 [ Pan: Aamca 4837 A ] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue Represented By : Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr 08.12.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026

10,75,470/-. The assessment was completed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on 21.03.2023 assessing Alang Steel Recycling Private Limited vs. Pr.CIT A.Y: 2018-19 the total income at ₹88,37,215/-. The case was reopened on the basis of information received from the investigation wing alleging that the assessee

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

37 & 38/AHD/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/s Venus Infrastructure and 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

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

37 & 38/AHD/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/s Venus Infrastructure and 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

SEQUEL LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-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)

reassessment order passed by the Ld. A.O. is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Since the Ld. A.O. considered the fact of the case in its entirety, raised queries in respect of the deduction claimed u/s. 80G (Chapter VI-A of the Act) on the CSR expenditure paid to H.N. Safal Foundation, which has valid exemption certificate

RAJENDRA MAGANBHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, VADODARA

37,210/-\nRs.3,79,69,033/-\n147 r.w.s.144C(13)\n29-12-2022\nRs.3,79,69,033/-\nAY 2015-16\n31.03.2021\n30.04.2021\nRs.77,421/-\nRs.14,36,26,449/-\nRs.10,47,988/-\nNIL\nRs.3,96,515/-\nRs.3,77,60,000/-\nRs.3,67,60,000/-\n147r.w.s.144C(13)\n06-01-2023\nRs.3,67,60,000/-\nITA Nos.105 & 106/Ahd/2023\nRajendra Manganbhai Patel vs. ACIT\nAsst

RAJENDRA MAGANBHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, VADODARA

37,210/-\nRs.3,79,69,033/-\n147 r.w.s.144C(13)\n29-12-2022\nRs.3,79,69,033/-\nAY 2015-16\n31.03.2021\n30.04.2021\nRs.77,421/-\nRs.14,36,26,449/-\nRs.10,47,988/-\nNIL\nRs.3,96,515/-\nRs.3,77,60,000/-\nRs.3,67,60,000/-\n147r.w.s.144C(13)\n06-01-2023\nRs.3,67,60,000/-\nITA Nos.105 & 106/Ahd/2023\nRajendra Manganbhai Patel vs. ACIT\nAsst

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

37(1) of the Act. Later, a report from the Investigation Wing,\nAhmedabad was received by the Assessing Officer (AO), which contained\ninformation regarding accommodation entries and manipulation of penny\nstock transactions allegedly carried out by the Kushal Group of Companies.\nBased on this information, the AO noted that the assessee was one of the\nbeneficiaries of such accommodation entries

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR OPEN UNIVERSITY,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1068/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Open The Cit(Exemption) बनाम/ University Ahmedabad V/S. “Jyotirmay Parisar” Dr.Babasaheb Amvedkar Open University Marg Sarkhej-Gandhinagar Highway Chharodi Ahmedabad – 382 481 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabfd 2922 P अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Bhatt, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

reassessment process, indicating that the AO believed that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The assessee filed its return of income u/s.147 of the Act on 30/04/2021, in response to the notice. A subsequent notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 15/06/2021 to conduct a scrutiny assessment, and the reasons for selection were communicated

GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,KHANJI BHAVAN vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AAYAKAR BHAWAN(VEJALPUR), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21

37(1). We find that the Assessing Officer had access to the relevant material and formed a view after examining the explanation of the assessee. Merely because a different view could be taken or further inquiries could have been made does not justify revision under section 263. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex v. CIT (supra

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

37(1) of the Act. Later, a report from the Investigation Wing,\nAhmedabad was received by the Assessing Officer (AO), which contained\ninformation regarding accommodation entries and manipulation of penny\nstock transactions allegedly carried out by the Kushal Group of Companies.\nBased on this information, the AO noted that the assessee was one of the\nbeneficiaries of such accommodation\nentries

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

37(1) of the Act. Later, a report from the Investigation Wing,\nAhmedabad was received by the Assessing Officer (AO), which contained\ninformation regarding accommodation entries and manipulation of penny\nstock transactions allegedly carried out by the Kushal Group of Companies.\nBased on this information, the AO noted that the assessee was one of the\nbeneficiaries of such accommodation\nentries

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

10(26) of the Act as any or all of individual partners would be in their individual capacity. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal made the following observations in this regard: “Under section 2(23) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the firm and partnership have the meaning as assigned to them in Indian Partnership Act, 1932, but also includes

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

10(26) of the Act as any or all of individual partners would be in their individual capacity. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal made the following observations in this regard: “Under section 2(23) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the firm and partnership have the meaning as assigned to them in Indian Partnership Act, 1932, but also includes

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

10(26) of the Act as any or all of individual partners would be in their individual capacity. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal made the following observations in this regard: “Under section 2(23) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the firm and partnership have the meaning as assigned to them in Indian Partnership Act, 1932, but also includes

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

10(26) of the Act as any or all of individual partners would be in their individual capacity. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal made the following observations in this regard: “Under section 2(23) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the firm and partnership have the meaning as assigned to them in Indian Partnership Act, 1932, but also includes

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

10(26) of the Act as any or all of individual partners would be in their individual capacity. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal made the following observations in this regard: “Under section 2(23) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the firm and partnership have the meaning as assigned to them in Indian Partnership Act, 1932, but also includes

MANISH RANJAN, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA, AHMEDABAD

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

reassessment stage. During appellate proceedings before us, no material has been brought on record by the Departmental Representative to controvert the assessee’s explanation or to dispute the conclusion drawn by the CIT(A). 32. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the conclusion of the CIT(A) in treating the amount of Rs.12,04,10,000/- as explained inter-bank

MANISH RANJAN, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAWAN ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA, ELLISBRIDGE AHMEDABAD GUJARAT

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

reassessment stage. During appellate proceedings before us, no material has been brought on record by the Departmental Representative to controvert the assessee’s explanation or to dispute the conclusion drawn by the CIT(A). 32. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the conclusion of the CIT(A) in treating the amount of Rs.12,04,10,000/- as explained inter-bank