THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. EL DORADO BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

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

Section 68 of the Act. 26. The Principles of Natural Justice requires that the Department which seeks to rely on the statement of a witness (Shri Partik R. Shah)has to allow the adverse party (the assessee) an opportunity of cross-examination of such witness. Admittedly, the opportunity for the cross examination of Shri Partik R. Shah

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

section 10(38) in respect of\nsimilar penny stock transactions and dismissing the assessee's appeal on the\nground that such transactions were found to be sham and bogus. The\nSupreme Court categorically held that the findings of the Tribunal and High\nCourt that the company involved was a penny stock and that the entire\ntransaction was not genuine

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

section 10(38) in respect of\nsimilar penny stock transactions and dismissing the assessee's appeal on the\nground that such transactions were found to be sham and bogus. The\nSupreme Court categorically held that the findings of the Tribunal and High\nCourt that the company involved was a penny stock and that the entire\ntransaction was not genuine

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

section 68 where the assessee failed to establish Gitaben Dineshbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 9– the identity and creditworthiness of counterparties and could not substantiate the genuineness of steep price rise in shares of a company with no commercial worth. The ratio of this judgment squarely applies to the present case, as the assessee has completely failed

NARANBHAI SAMATBHAI BHARWAD THROUGH LEGAL HEIR DEVRAJBHAI NARANBHAI BHARWAD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Tr Senthil Kumar

Section 115BBE of the Act. 03. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the Ld.AO in levying interest u/s.234 A/B/C/D of the Act Asst.Year 2017-18 - 2– 04. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the Ld.AO in initiating

AANYA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rifaur Rahman

section 68 of the Act. He further observed that the assessee has alleged payment of interest on these loans which were termed as bogus, therefore, the expenses claimed in the shape of interest deserves to be disallowed. He disallowed such interest expenditure and made addition of Rs.3,01,277/-. 5. Dissatisfied with the additions, the assessee carried the matter

NAVRATNA ORGANISERS & DEV. PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENT. CIRCLE 1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

68 of the Income Tax Act contemplates that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof, or the explanation offered by the assessee is not, in the opinion of the AO satisfactory, then the sum so credited

NAVRANGPURA ORGANISERS & DEV. PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

68 of the Income Tax Act contemplates that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof, or the explanation offered by the assessee is not, in the opinion of the AO satisfactory, then the sum so credited

DCIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ALPESHKUMAR C.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1908/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive In Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. Pan: Aeapp9489G

167 of the paper book. Thus the learned AR contended that there cannot be any denial of the exemption under section 54F of the Act. It was also contended that there was no property held by the assessee for residential purposes in his name as on the date of transfer. 14. Both the learned DR and the AR vehemently

SHAILESH K PATEL-HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 288/Ahd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) िनधा"रण वष" Shailesh K. Patel Huf The Income Tax Officer बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Ward – 3(3)(5), Vs. Advocate Ahmedabad 512, Time Square – I, Op. Ram Baug Bungalow, Thaltej Shilaj Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aalhs9548E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Ketan Shah & Shri Aman Shah, अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : A.Rs. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. Dr 04/06/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 18/06/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 24.01.2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal:

167 as well as Paper Book - II page 1 upto 213 and based on these submissions / case laws he ought to have deleted the whole addition. (Tax Effect Rs. 31,45,930/-)” 3. The grounds taken by the assessee pertain to disallowance of Rs.73,29,100/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed exempt under Section

HEMANT GORDHANBHAI PATEL,NADIAD vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN., VADODARA

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68,35,500/- located at Nadiad, Gujarat. The AO noted that two specific payments were made by the assessee through cheques dated 15.05.2013 and 25.10.2013, totalling to ₹51,26,625/- for purchase of the aforesaid property. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that the funds were paid from his NRE account (Bank of Baroda Account No. 029001000015955). However

SHANTIJI PIRAJI SUTHAR,BANASKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, PALANPUR

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.787/Ahd/2024, 788/Ahd/2024 & 789/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shantiji Piraji Suthar The Ito बनाम/ Sherpura, Ward-4 V/S. Tal.Deesa Palanpur – 385 001 Banaskantha – 385 535 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bwops 8650 P अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) ….. Assessee By : Shri Anil Brahmakshatriya, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

section 68 of the Act. 3. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) after a delay of more than two years. The delay was attributed to the assessee’s illiteracy, lack of understanding of the proceedings (as the notices were in English), and the mistaken belief that agricultural income was not taxable. The assessee submitted an affidavit

SHANTIJI PIRAJI SUTHAR,BANASKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, PALANPUR

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.787/Ahd/2024, 788/Ahd/2024 & 789/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shantiji Piraji Suthar The Ito बनाम/ Sherpura, Ward-4 V/S. Tal.Deesa Palanpur – 385 001 Banaskantha – 385 535 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bwops 8650 P अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) ….. Assessee By : Shri Anil Brahmakshatriya, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

section 68 of the Act. 3. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) after a delay of more than two years. The delay was attributed to the assessee’s illiteracy, lack of understanding of the proceedings (as the notices were in English), and the mistaken belief that agricultural income was not taxable. The assessee submitted an affidavit

SHANTIJI PIRAJI SUTHAR,BANASKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, PALANPUR

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.787/Ahd/2024, 788/Ahd/2024 & 789/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shantiji Piraji Suthar The Ito बनाम/ Sherpura, Ward-4 V/S. Tal.Deesa Palanpur – 385 001 Banaskantha – 385 535 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bwops 8650 P अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) ….. Assessee By : Shri Anil Brahmakshatriya, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

section 68 of the Act. 3. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) after a delay of more than two years. The delay was attributed to the assessee’s illiteracy, lack of understanding of the proceedings (as the notices were in English), and the mistaken belief that agricultural income was not taxable. The assessee submitted an affidavit

KISHORI PANKAJ AGARWAL,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , VADODARA, GUJARAT

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA (Accountant Member)

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2015-16. ITA No. 623/Ahd/2023 [Kishori Pankaj Agarwal vs. ITO] A.Y. 2015-16 - 2 – 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well

WAVES TRADELINE PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68 days] | 22.08.2022 | 24.08.2022 | Order under Section 148A(d) of the Act passed on | 26.08.2022 | 26.08.2022 | Notice under Section 148 of the Act issued on | 27.08.2022 | 27.08.2022 | Applicability of Rajiv Bansal judgement (Yes/No) | Yes. Barred by Time Limitation | Yes. Barred by Time Limitation | 27.08.2022 19. The contention of the assessee is that the Assessing Officer was required

VIKAS CHANDRAKANTBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

167 taxmann.com 759 (Delhi). The CIT(A) further observed that sufficient opportunity had been provided to the assessee during the proceedings under section 148A but the assessee had failed to furnish any explanation regarding the accommodation entries. The CIT(Appeals). relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Rochana Aggarwal v. ACIT (2022) 138 taxmann.com

SONA ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2018-19

68 of the Act as unexplained credits. The Assessing Officer also made disallowance under section 37 amounting to Rs.1,23,20,51,028/- in respect of the interest component paid by the assessee as reflected in the Balance Sheet. The Assessing Officer further made disallowance of Rs.47,92,04,167