ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDABAD vs. DEVRAJ HARSHADRAY PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

54B in as much as that as per assessee taxable capital gain was NIL and without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the appellant. 2. He has erred in law and on facts in upholding addition of Rs. 38,50,000 u/s. 68 and holding that assessee failed to discharge onus to prove cash credit in as much as that

LATE SMT. RAMILABEN HARSHADRAI PATEL(THROUGH L/H DEVRAJ H.PATEL),AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

54B in as much as that as per assessee taxable capital gain was NIL and without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the appellant. 2. He has erred in law and on facts in upholding addition of Rs. 38,50,000 u/s. 68 and holding that assessee failed to discharge onus to prove cash credit in as much as that

DEVRAJ HARSHADRAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

54B in as much as that as per assessee taxable capital gain was NIL and without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the appellant. 2. He has erred in law and on facts in upholding addition of Rs. 38,50,000 u/s. 68 and holding that assessee failed to discharge onus to prove cash credit in as much as that

RAMNIKLAL R BHADRA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD

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

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

section 54B, 54C, 54D, 54G & 54GA of the Act.  Ilesh was specifically called upon to comply with reasons for selecting the case for scrutiny. In response thereto, Ilesh has furnished the required documents along with requisite clarifications.  Ilesh had produced books of accounts, bank statements. P&L Account, Balance Sheet, sale / purchase deed & Income Tax Return. Such documentary evidences were

NITABAHEN DINESHBHAI BHARWAD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD -3, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

54B of the Act which, however, was disallowed by the AO. The assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on 27.02.2023 at total income of Rs.4,53,940/-. Subsequently, the case record was called for examination by the Ld. PCIT. He found that the fair market value of the property as on 01.04.2001 was wrongly worked