THE ACIT,(OSD)CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. TORRENT POWER LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross-objection of the assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Amarjit Singh

u/s. 14A of the Act, has been confirmed by my predecessor vide his appellate order dated 19/02/2009, The same is, therefore, upheld. The ground of appeal is accordingly partly allowed.” 11. After having heard both the parties and after appreciating the facts of the present case, we find that the initial order of assessment u/s.143

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 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 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

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001. 12. A perusal of this section would indicate that sub-section-1 contemplates that deduction of expenditure incurred

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001. 12. A perusal of this section would indicate that sub-section-1 contemplates that deduction of expenditure incurred

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

SHANTABEN PARASMAL JAIN,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 726/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shantaben Parasmal Jain, Vs. Dcit, 27, Vijay Society, Cir – 3(1), New Khanderao Road., Vadodara. Baroda. Pan No. Abwpj 8597 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prakash D. Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri S. N. Dev, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-I, Vadodara [“Cit(A)” In Short] Relevant To Assessment Year 2010- 11. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings & Therefore The Order Passed By The Learned Ao Is Required To Be Quashed. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Confirming The Disallowance Of Long Term Capital Gain Of Rs. 87,57,789/- As Exempt Income & Adding Back To The Total Income Of The Appellant & Therefore The Learned Ao Should Be Directed To Allow The Claim Of Exempt Income. 3. That The Appellant Craves Liberty To Add, Amend, Alter & Delete Any Grounds Of Appeal Before The Final Hearing.”

reassessment proceedings and therefore the order passed by the learned AO is required to be quashed. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts by confirming the disallowance of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 87,57,789/- as exempt income and adding back to the total income of the appellant and therefore

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