MOHSIN ZULFIKAR KORADIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarasstt.Year : 2011-12 Mohsin Zulfikar Koradia The Pr.Cit-3 C/O.Gujarat Food Industries Vs Ahmedabad. 4324 Phase Iv Gidc Vatva Ahmedabad 382 445 Pan : Htpk 0799 C

147 On 20-11-2018 by AO was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of Revenue. 2.3 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. Pr.CIT has grievously erred in holding that the transaction of VAS Infrastructure Ltd shares was penny stock and engaged in providing accommodation entry so that the entire sale

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

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 came

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

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 came

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

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 came

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

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 came

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

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 came

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

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 came

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

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 came

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

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 came

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

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 came

SHRI NAVINCHANDRA N. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

short term capital gain of Rs. 43,11,186/- was chargeable to tax in the asst, year under consideration. On verification of the case records, it is seen that the assessee has offered an income of Rs. 248/- under the head income from capital gain (the amount is not earned by way sale of land). Therefore, I have a reason

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

short term capital gain he had earned during the year under consideration in his return of income, and thus, there was neither any income escaping assessment nor the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer has caused prejudice to the interest of the revenue. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it be so held

OVEZ ARIFBHAI LAKHANI,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Benches, Has Arisen From The Revisionary Order Dated 12.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Principal

short KDJHRL)(formerly known as Gomti Finlease (India) Limited). The said scrip is a penny stock with scrip ID 530701 , engaged in providing long term capital gain/ loss to various entities. Based on above information, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s. 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act, as a transaction in the penny stock being not commensurate with

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

short, “the AO”) u/s 147 read with section 148 of the Act. We take up this legal issue first for adjudication. Grounds Nos. 1 to 3: 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that, in this case, the assessment was reopened by the AO on the basis of the information circulated on Insight Portal of Department, wherein

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

short, “the AO”) u/s 147 read with section 148 of the Act. We take up this legal issue first for adjudication. Grounds Nos. 1 to 3: 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that, in this case, the assessment was reopened by the AO on the basis of the information circulated on Insight Portal of Department, wherein

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

short, “the AO”) u/s 147 read with section 148 of the Act. We take up this legal issue first for adjudication. Grounds Nos. 1 to 3: 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that, in this case, the assessment was reopened by the AO on the basis of the information circulated on Insight Portal of Department, wherein

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:

short NFAC) upholding that the capital gain on sale of shares of Monotype India Ltd. was not genuine and thereby upholding the addition of Rs.59,93,278/- as unexplained credit u/s 68 made by A.O. is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 2.1 The Id. NFAC has grievously erred in law and or on facts

AMISH MANUBHAI BRAHMBHATT ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

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

u/s. 147 of the Act. Further the reasons recorded for providing entries of long term capital gain, short term capital loss or business loss by the assessee. But none of the above three elements are found in the assessee’s case which is in intraday transaction whereby the nominal profit of Rs.49792 received by the assessee which is offered

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.

short term capital gain/loss, trading loss etc. wherein cash is received by him from various clients and against this cash he provides accommodation entries. On analysis of the trade data and information, it is seen that the assessee has purchased/ sold 83500 shares of Sawaca and received pay-in/pay