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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

price of this block was at Rs.5,13,883/-. The assessee has purchased this block along other family members, and was having 1/6th share. The AO has made addition of Rs.5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment in block no.77. Similarly, the assessee has made addition of Rs.4,48,378/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

price of this block was at Rs.5,13,883/-. The assessee has purchased this block along other family members, and was having 1/6th share. The AO has made addition of Rs.5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment in block no.77. Similarly, the assessee has made addition of Rs.4,48,378/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

price of this block was at Rs.5,13,883/-. The assessee has purchased this block along other family members, and was having 1/6th share. The AO has made addition of Rs.5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment in block no.77. Similarly, the assessee has made addition of Rs.4,48,378/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

price of this block was at Rs.5,13,883/-. The assessee has purchased this block along other family members, and was having 1/6th share. The AO has made addition of Rs.5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment in block no.77. Similarly, the assessee has made addition of Rs.4,48,378/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

price of this block was at Rs.5,13,883/-. The assessee has purchased this block along other family members, and was having 1/6th share. The AO has made addition of Rs.5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment in block no.77. Similarly, the assessee has made addition of Rs.4,48,378/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

price of this block was at Rs.5,13,883/-. The assessee has purchased this block along other family members, and was having 1/6th share. The AO has made addition of Rs.5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment in block no.77. Similarly, the assessee has made addition of Rs.4,48,378/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

price of this block was at Rs.5,13,883/-. The assessee has purchased this block along other family members, and was having 1/6th share. The AO has made addition of Rs.5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment in block no.77. Similarly, the assessee has made addition of Rs.4,48,378/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account

SHREE AATH PARAGANA GURJAR PRAJAPATI SAMAJ TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : - Shree Aath Paragana Gurjar Prajapati The Cit(Exemption) Samaj Trust Vs. Vejalpur Prajapati Bhavan Chatrala Ahmedabad. Sola Railway Over Bridge Naittar Chede, Sola Ghatlodia. Pan : Abfts 9086 E (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Prakash D. Shah & Shri Saiyam Shah, Ar : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/08/2025

transfer pricing deadlines, as well as the intervening Diwali holidays, the filing of the appeal was inadvertently delayed. The assessee has specifically affirmed that there was no intention to delay the proceedings or prejudice the interest of the Revenue, and that the delay was neither wilful nor deliberate but occurred due to genuine professional and logistical constraints. In the accompanying

BGSCTPL- MSKEL CONSORTIUM,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Us & That These Four

price as defined in clause (ii) of section 92F. (11) The Central Government may, after making such inquiry as it may think fit, direct, by notification in the Official Gazette, that the exemption conferred by this section shall not apply to any class of industrial undertaking or enterprise with effect from such date as it may specify in the notification

BGSCTPL- MSKEL (JV),AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Us & That These Four

price as defined in clause (ii) of section 92F. (11) The Central Government may, after making such inquiry as it may think fit, direct, by notification in the Official Gazette, that the exemption conferred by this section shall not apply to any class of industrial undertaking or enterprise with effect from such date as it may specify in the notification

JMC-MSKE(JV),,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Us & That These Four

price as defined in clause (ii) of section 92F. (11) The Central Government may, after making such inquiry as it may think fit, direct, by notification in the Official Gazette, that the exemption conferred by this section shall not apply to any class of industrial undertaking or enterprise with effect from such date as it may specify in the notification

JMC-MSKE(JV),,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Us & That These Four

price as defined in clause (ii) of section 92F. (11) The Central Government may, after making such inquiry as it may think fit, direct, by notification in the Official Gazette, that the exemption conferred by this section shall not apply to any class of industrial undertaking or enterprise with effect from such date as it may specify in the notification

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Transfer Pricing upward adjustment u/s.92CA(1) of the I.T Act as under: (a) Corporate Guarantee to Aes 8,32,291 (b) Capital Infusion to Aes 14,05,927 (c) Interest on Loan to Aes 4,39,625 Total: 26,77,843 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeal) erred in confirming exclusion

HARSHADKUMAR HARGOVANDAS PATEL,KALOL vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 131 was issued to cross-verify the transaction.\nInstead, the Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure merely on the basis\nof conjecture and surmise. The Counsel submitted that both the Assessing\nOfficer and the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the expenditure was\nsupported by records and confirmations and that the disallowance made in\nthe absence of any contrary evidence

DCIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT STATE BOARD OF SCHOOL TEXT BOOK, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, both the M

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

transfer of land or plots but it was not the case that the profits so generated were not within the main provisions of section 11 of the IT Act, (emphasis supplied) Even the assessee has earned premium price on lease of plot and land for sale but if the entire expenditure and the profit earned there from was exclusively used

DCIT(E), CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT STATE BOARD OF SCHOOL TEXT BOOK, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, both the M

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

transfer of land or plots but it was not the case that the profits so generated were not within the main provisions of section 11 of the IT Act, (emphasis supplied) Even the assessee has earned premium price on lease of plot and land for sale but if the entire expenditure and the profit earned there from was exclusively used

DCIT (EXMP) CIRCLE-1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT STATE BOARD OF SCHOOL TEXT BOOK, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, both the M

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

transfer of land or plots but it was not the case that the profits so generated were not within the main provisions of section 11 of the IT Act, (emphasis supplied) Even the assessee has earned premium price on lease of plot and land for sale but if the entire expenditure and the profit earned there from was exclusively used

DCIT (EXMP) CIRCLE 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT STATE BOARD OF SCHOOL TEXT BOOK, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, both the M

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

transfer of land or plots but it was not the case that the profits so generated were not within the main provisions of section 11 of the IT Act, (emphasis supplied) Even the assessee has earned premium price on lease of plot and land for sale but if the entire expenditure and the profit earned there from was exclusively used