GALAXY DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT., CIRCLE-7(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed

transferred on change of jurisdiction, and further notices under section 142(1) along with detailed questionnaires were issued from time to time, calling for various details including explanation for valuation of land purchases and justification for not disclosing any income under the head “Income from House Property” in respect of unsold flats held as stock-in-trade.\nDuring the course

PRAVINSINH BHAWANSINH VAGHELA,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

220/-, the CIT(Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under section 54B of the Act to the extent of ₹80,62,820/- being the registered purchase price plus incidental Pravinsinh Bhawansinh Vaghela vs. ITO Asst.Year –2012-13 - 4– acquisition expenses. Thus, this ground was partly allowed. The subsequent ground related to deduction under section

SHRI DILIP DEVJIBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRLCE-1(2) NOW THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2009-10

220/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer initiated Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2009-10 after recording reasons and taking necessary approval. Assessment Year: 2009-10 Page 2 of 7 Notice u/s 148 dated 02.07.2014 was served upon the assessee through speed post. The copy of recording

N K PROTEINS PVT. LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

2 Considering these facts, transactions of future & option carried out by appellant cannot be considered as hedging transactions as covered by proviso to Section 43(5) of the Act. Considering these facts, addition made by AO for Rs.4,20,57,547/-, is confirmed.” 7.2 Before us, Ld. AR reiterated the arguments taken up before the Revenue Authorities

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. N K PROTEINS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

2 Considering these facts, transactions of future & option carried out by appellant cannot be considered as hedging transactions as covered by proviso to Section 43(5) of the Act. Considering these facts, addition made by AO for Rs.4,20,57,547/-, is confirmed.” 7.2 Before us, Ld. AR reiterated the arguments taken up before the Revenue Authorities

BHAMIRABEN PRASHANTKUMAR PATEL,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.654/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Bhamiraben Prashantkumar Patel The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 14, Vaividhya Bungalows Ward-1 V/S. Dr. H.M. Patel Anand – 388 001 Anand Vallabh Vidhyanagar Road, Anand – 388 001 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Azcpp 7413 M (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Garg, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/12/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for the year under consideration declaring total income of Rs.40,690/-. The assessee had shown tax exempt income under the head of “Long Term Capital Gains” (LTCG) of Rs.80,75,140/-. The AO noted that as per the report

INCOME TAX WARD 4(2)(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL HUF, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

price fixed by Govt. under Sugar (Control) order which was nothing but distribution of profit resulting in escapement of income, was without jurisdiction. In the case of Shree Sayan Vibhag Sahkari vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2016] 69 taxmann.com 245 (Gujarat)[05-04-2016], the Gujarat High Court held that in absence of any failure on part of assessee

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

price fixed by Govt. under Sugar (Control) order which was nothing but distribution of profit resulting in escapement of income, was without jurisdiction. In the case of Shree Sayan Vibhag Sahkari vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2016] 69 taxmann.com 245 (Gujarat)[05-04-2016], the Gujarat High Court held that in absence of any failure on part of assessee

INCOME TAX WARD 4(2)(3) AHMEDABAD , AHMEDABAD vs. NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL HUF, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

price fixed by Govt. under Sugar (Control) order which was nothing but distribution of profit resulting in escapement of income, was without jurisdiction. In the case of Shree Sayan Vibhag Sahkari vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2016] 69 taxmann.com 245 (Gujarat)[05-04-2016], the Gujarat High Court held that in absence of any failure on part of assessee

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

price fixed by Govt. under Sugar (Control) order which was nothing but distribution of profit resulting in escapement of income, was without jurisdiction. In the case of Shree Sayan Vibhag Sahkari vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2016] 69 taxmann.com 245 (Gujarat)[05-04-2016], the Gujarat High Court held that in absence of any failure on part of assessee

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

price fixed by Govt. under Sugar (Control) order which was nothing but distribution of profit resulting in escapement of income, was without jurisdiction. In the case of Shree Sayan Vibhag Sahkari vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2016] 69 taxmann.com 245 (Gujarat)[05-04-2016], the Gujarat High Court held that in absence of any failure on part of assessee

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AWAS DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 368/Ahd/2020 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T, M/S Awas Developers, Central Circle-1(4), Vs. “Agam Buglows” Ahmedabad. Opp. Subhash Society, Sanand-Kalol Road, Ahmedabad.

price of the residential bungalow is Rs.21.50lacs as against which Rs.30.50lacs has been recovered from the client. The difference of Rs.9,00,000/- is the unaccounted receipt members each bungalow. Since there are 40 bungalows in the aforesaid scheme there is an undisclosed income of to the extent of Rs.3.60 lacs. The AO has also placed reliance on the statement