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

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer\nanalyzed the information emanating from search and survey operations\nconducted on 05.02.2019 under section 132 of the Act, in the Kushal Group\ncases. The search revealed incriminating evidence such as digital data, loose\npapers, and electronic devices indicating that the Kushal Group was engaged\nin price rigging and providing bogus accommodation entries in the form

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

38,229/-only. However, the AO was dissatisfied with the claim of the assessee for the reason as detailed below: ITA Nos.37-38/AHD/2021 A.Y.s 2008-09 & 2017-18 3 i. The impugned project was not completed within the period of 5 years from the end of the year in which the approval was granted by the local authority as required under

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

38,229/-only. However, the AO was dissatisfied with the claim of the assessee for the reason as detailed below: ITA Nos.37-38/AHD/2021 A.Y.s 2008-09 & 2017-18 3 i. The impugned project was not completed within the period of 5 years from the end of the year in which the approval was granted by the local authority as required under

SHAH RAKESH BHIKHABHAI (HUF),AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassess the assessee again and again upon the same issue in a time barred assessment which is already concluded by the assessing officer after applying his mind and conducting sufficient 150 enquiry. 2.6 Lastly, without prejudice to the above, and in the alternative, the assessee would like to submit that your honour has explained that Only three parties' information

GITABEN DINESHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 93,92,789/- under section 68 of the Act by treating the Long-Term Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed by the assessee as exempt under section 10(38

JAYANTILAL PANACHAND SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year : 2014-15 Jayantilal Panachand Shah The Pr.Cit-1 72, Topovan Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Manekbaug Hall Ambawadi Ahmedabad 380 015 Pan : Aqnps 2754 C (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Divetia, Ar : Shri A.P. Singh, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/11/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

38) of the Act from penny stock scrip of Looks Health Services Ltd.). 7.1 In view of the fact of the case and ruling of Hon'ble Supreme court, it is clear that the assessment order is passed by the A.O., without making proper examination of the issues mentioned above. The Assessing Officer has failed to make addition in accordance

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#।]

10(38) of the Act on alleged penny stock transactions. o In the corresponding Cross-objections the assessees have challenged the legality of the assessment orders for want of valid approval u/s 153D of the Act. • In ITA No. 130/AHD/2024, the assessee Smt. Anuradha Shivkumar Gogia challenges the confirmation of the addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- on account

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), AAYKAR BHAVAN vs. SIDDHESWARI INFRASTRUCTURE, JUDGES BUNGLOW ROAD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 595 & 596/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively The Dcit Siddheswari Infrastructure बनाम/ Circle-1(3) B-101, Shakti Enclave V/S. Ahmedabad Judges Bungalows Road Ahmedabad – 380 054 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abmfs 3587 R (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : -None- Revenue By : Shri Rignesh K. Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

Section 147 Date of Reassessment 29.09.2021 29.09.2021 Order Key Additions by AO - Rs.1,38,65,603 - Rs.2,10,62,866 (Unexplained

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3) ,AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAVAN, ASHRAM ROAD vs. SIDDHESWARI INFRASTRUCTURE, JUDGES BUNGLOW ROAD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 595 & 596/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively The Dcit Siddheswari Infrastructure बनाम/ Circle-1(3) B-101, Shakti Enclave V/S. Ahmedabad Judges Bungalows Road Ahmedabad – 380 054 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abmfs 3587 R (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : -None- Revenue By : Shri Rignesh K. Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

Section 147 Date of Reassessment 29.09.2021 29.09.2021 Order Key Additions by AO - Rs.1,38,65,603 - Rs.2,10,62,866 (Unexplained

BHAVNA SHETALKUMAR PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

reassessment order dated 30.03.2022 passed by the\nAssessing Officer under section 147 read with section 144 and section\n144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)"] for\nthe Assessment Year 2016-17.\nCondonation of Delay\n2.\nAt the outset, it is noted that the appeal has been filed with a delay\nof 170 days

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

THE DCIT (INT.TAXA.), VADODARA vs. SHRI AJOY KANAIYALAL KHANDHERIA, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.451/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ranjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 3337, Nr. Palaiya Mahakali Ward-3 V/S. Mandir Gandhinagar Pethapur, Gandhinagar Gandhinagar – 382 610 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afepv 3269 D (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 19/01/2024, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Which Upheld The Order Of The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] Dated 30/12/2019, Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"]. Ranjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2012-13

38,944 Received 2.3. The AO issued a show cause notice to the assessee, referring to the compensation received and the related interest component, which was detailed as under: 1. Compensation in respect of Survey No. 56/1: o Fixed Deposit (FD) Amount: Rs. 8,22,25,640/-. o Withdrawal by Hon'ble Civil Court

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:

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

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

section 263 of the Act. He accordingly prayed for dismissal of the appeal of the assessee. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration, and perused the material available on record including the paper book and case laws compilation. It is seen from the reassessment proceedings, the ld.AO 11 vide his notice dated 25.11.2021 called for various information relating

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

38,944\n2. 3. The AO issued a show cause notice to the assessee, referring to the\ncompensation received and the related interest component, which was\ndetailed as under:\n1. Compensation in respect of Survey No. 56/1:\nFixed Deposit (FD) Amount: Rs.8,22,25,640/-.\nWithdrawal by Hon'ble Civil Court: Rs.12,62,82,922/-.\nBank Interest Component: Rs.4

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. N K PROTEINS PVT. LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

38 (Gujarat)/355 ITR 172 (Guj), Hon'ble Jurisdictional Tribunal in Appellant's own case and other decisions as mentioned above and also as relied upon by the Appellant on similar issue to the Appellant's case, I find that claim of Appellant is correct. 4.10. In addition to above and on perusal of reasons recorded by AO which

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 HIMATNAGAR, HIMATNAGAR vs. KALIDAS JIVABHAI PATEL, HIMATNAGAR

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.934/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, Kalidas Jivabhai Patel, Ward-1, बनाम/ Asian Parivar, V/S. Himatnagar. Nr. Mahakali Mandir Road, Himatnagar-383001. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Accpp5913D & C.O No.18/Ahd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.934/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Kalidas Jivabhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer, Asian Parivar, बनाम/ Ward-1, V/S. Nr. Mahakali Mandir Road, Himatnagar. Himatnagar-383001. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Accpp5913D

10(38) was not fulfilled in respect of these additional shares. The Assessing Officer further noted that the sale transactions were executed through synchronized trading between close relatives and family members. The buyers of the shares were identified as Shri Kamleshbhai Patel, a relative, and Shri Mukeshbhai Patel, a close relative and significant shareholder of Asian Granito India

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