RAJESHBHAI BHAGWANDAS PATEL,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5 (3) (2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, and the assessment order is quashed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13

reassessment proceedings under section 147 for A.Y. 2012–13 was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. 6.3 Though the issue stands concluded on jurisdictional grounds, we deem it appropriate to briefly address the merits for completeness. The assessee has submitted that the entire sale consideration was invested in the purchase of a new residential property within the time frame

ABDULVAHED A. SHEIKH, LEGAL HEIROF LATE SMT. SARIFABEN BIKHUBHAI SHEK,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(5),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

reassessment is bad in law since there is no escapement of income. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the exparty order and thereby has erred in confirming the addition of Long Term Capital Gain [LTCG] of Rs. 32,63,644 in as much as the fair market value as on 01-04-1981 should have been adopted

SHRI CHANNANSINGH S. GILL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

section 54F was occurred on 09/06/2008 which is before date of the filing of original return of income. Therefore, in the interest of revenue, deduction claimed u/s.54F of Rs.44,49,206/- allowed in the assessment order u/s.143(3) dated 30/09/2010, is withdrawn and added to the total income of the assessee on "protective basis". Channansingh S Gill Vs. ITO Assessment

LATE SHRI RANJITSINH BHAWANSINH VAGHELA THRU L/H BHARATSINH R. VAGHELA,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3,, GANDHINAGAR

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

54F at Rs.29,00,637/-. The CIT(Appeals) accordingly partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Late Shri Ranjitsinh Bhawansih Vaghela (L/h. Through Bharatsinh R. Vaghela) vs. ITO Asst.Year –2012-13 - 3– 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 6. When the matter came before

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:

section 54F, and had produced all relevant documentary evidence including sale deed, purchase deed and contractor's confirmation. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing.…” 5. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that during the course of reassessment

JIGNASA ATULKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

reassessment order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) on 28-04-2023 which is pending when Ld. PCIT initiated the proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act. In fact on the very same issue on sale of shares of M/s. Oasis Tradelink Ltd. which is the subject matter of appeal pending before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore as per Clause

BELL GRANITO CERAMICS LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act as valid and in accordance with law. 8. From the above facts, we find that the AO at the time of original assessment has duly verified the Capital gain and related exemption u/s 54F /54EC as 6 . A.Y. 2008-09 claimed by the assessee. The submission of assessee clearly shows that the exemption

VINODKUMAR S TOTLA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-7(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

54F of the Act and added a sum of Rs. 56,11,000/- as short term capital gain to the income of the assessee. 4. The assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the assessee’s appeal vide order dated 14-12-2018 by holding that: (a) The final purchase deed executed

VIDHI PRAGNESH MODI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(5), AHMEDABAD

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

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

section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.A No. 1917/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 2 Vidhi Pragnesh Modi vs. ITO Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual and filed her Return of Income for the Asst. Year

SHRI BABUBHAI SHANTILAL SOLANKI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

54F of the Act. However Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made u/s. 55A of the Act. Further appeal by the assessee before this Tribunal, the addition of Rs. 40,40,225 made u/s. 55A was deleted by the Tribunal vide order dated 27.06.2019 in ITA No. 727/Ahd/2016 and allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee

BHANUPRASAD MAGANLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 2(4) of the 1922 Act referred to an adventure in the nature of trade, it clearly suggested that the transaction in question cannot properly be regarded as trade or business. It was allied to transactions that constituted trade or business, but may not be trade or business itself. In other words, it is characterized by some