BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

126 results for “TDS”+ Short Term Capital Gainsclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai974Delhi748Bangalore352Chennai323Kolkata173Ahmedabad126Chandigarh114Jaipur91Raipur69Hyderabad66Indore46Surat38Pune22Lucknow22Visakhapatnam21Karnataka21Cuttack12Telangana10Nagpur10Agra9Rajkot9Guwahati8Dehradun8Kerala6Amritsar6SC6Panaji5Jabalpur4Jodhpur3Cochin3Calcutta2Patna1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)99Addition to Income83Section 14864Disallowance54Section 14729Deduction27Section 26325Section 271(1)(c)24TDS23Penalty

SHAMA AJAY PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(IT & TP), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 132/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shama Ajay Patel, Vs. 2, Chandroday Society, The Cit(It & Tp), Opp. Golden Triangle, Sp Ahmedabad Stadium Road, Navjivan Post, Ahmedabad-380014 Pan : Alxpp 5273 E अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It & Tp), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. "Cit(It & Tp)" For Short] Dated 08.02.2023, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit (It & Tp) Reads As Under:- “1. The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Passing Order U/S 263 Without Jurisdiction & Appropriate Powers Available Under The Act. It Is Submitted That The Order Passed U/S. 263 Is Bad In Law As A.O. Has Neither Committed Any Error Nor It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. It Be Held Now.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 147Section 263

Showing 1–20 of 126 · Page 1 of 7

21
Section 13220
Section 234E20

short term capital gain on the same and TDS was already deducted and taxed at 15.45%. She has submitted that

VISHAL EXPORTS OVERSEAS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ground No.7 raised by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 399/AHD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year:2009-10 Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd., The Acit, Circle-8, 301 Sheel Complex, 4 Mayur Colony, Vs Ahmebada. Nr. Mithakhali Six Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan :Aaacv 2354 D (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Ms Urvashi Shodhan, Advocate Revenue By : Shria. P. Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21/04/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement: 29/06/2022 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms Urvashi Shodhan, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriA. P. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

short term capital gain and Rs.53,15,401/- for long term capital gain). Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered the submission of the assessee and delete the addition made by AO. It be so held now. 8. Confirming levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C is unjustified. Initiation of penalty

SMT. RAJSHRI VASTAL PARIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 183/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Vatsal Navnitlal Parikh Ito, Ward-5(2)(1) 501, Belvedere Flat Vs Ahmedabad. 5Th Floor, Jodhpur Cross Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aavpp 9647 H Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt.Rajshri Vastal Parikh Ito, Ward-5(2)(1) 501, Belvedere Flat Vs Ahmedabad. 5Th Floor, Jodhpur Cross Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Acypp 8836 H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divetia, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: These Appeals Are Filed By Two Assessees Against Orders Of Even Dated I.E. 27.12.2018 Passed By Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-5, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] Relating To The Assessment Year 2015-16. Since Common Issue Is Raised In Both The Appeals, We Dispose Of Them By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 54

short), and thereafter the same was selected for scrutiny assessment proceedings. Notices u/s.142(1) & 143(2) were issued and The assessee was being heard from time to time. During the assessment proceedings, the ld.AO noticed that in the statement of income under computation of “long term capital gains”, the assessee has shown 50% of sale consideration in respect of immovable

SHRI VATSAL NAVNITLAL PARIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 182/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Vatsal Navnitlal Parikh Ito, Ward-5(2)(1) 501, Belvedere Flat Vs Ahmedabad. 5Th Floor, Jodhpur Cross Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aavpp 9647 H Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt.Rajshri Vastal Parikh Ito, Ward-5(2)(1) 501, Belvedere Flat Vs Ahmedabad. 5Th Floor, Jodhpur Cross Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Acypp 8836 H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divetia, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: These Appeals Are Filed By Two Assessees Against Orders Of Even Dated I.E. 27.12.2018 Passed By Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-5, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] Relating To The Assessment Year 2015-16. Since Common Issue Is Raised In Both The Appeals, We Dispose Of Them By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 54

short), and thereafter the same was selected for scrutiny assessment proceedings. Notices u/s.142(1) & 143(2) were issued and The assessee was being heard from time to time. During the assessment proceedings, the ld.AO noticed that in the statement of income under computation of “long term capital gains”, the assessee has shown 50% of sale consideration in respect of immovable

PARESH ISHWARBHAI DESAI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(2)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1047/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1047/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2014-2015 Paresh Iswarbhai Desai, Income Tax Officer, Rabari Vyas, Vs. Ward-2(2)(4), Kali Gam, Ahmedabad. Po. Digvijaynagar, Ranip, Ahmedabad-382480. Pan: Adwpd2265R

For Appellant: Shri Ketan H. Shah, A.R with Shri Aman Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R
Section 131(1)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)

TDS compliance for plastering work contract given the color of mattipuran and routed the payment through partner’s account. Thus, the AO disallowed the assessee’s claim of mattipran & leveling expenses and added to the short term capital gain

M/S. SAKARLAL BALABHAI & COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1713/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Sakarlal Balabhai & Co. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 1001/6, 10Th Floor, Ankush Apartment, Vs Ward 4(1)(1), 10Th Khetwadi Lane, Grant Road, Ahmedabad Mumbai-400004 Pan : Aadcs 0862 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bimlendu Bhusan, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/09/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad [“Cit(A) In Short]” Dated 20.09.2019 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under:- “1. Learned Cit(A) Has Neither Discussed Anything Related To The Disallowance Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer Nor Considered Any Grounds Related To That Raised By The Us For Which Actually Appeal Has Been Filed By The Appellant. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Claimed That The Appellant Is Involved In Only Investment Activity & Does Not Have Any Business Activity & We Do Not Agree With It.”

For Appellant: Shri Bimlendu Bhusan, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

Gains business. ii. Interest Expenses :- Interest on Car Loan:- This is interest paid to party from which loan taken for car which used exclusive for business purpose. Interest on Loan for business :- This is interest paid to various parties from which loan have been taken for business which is evident from our balance sheet Note No.5. Short Term Borrowing

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI R. MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2281/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R
Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

short term capital gains comes to Rs. 1,72,04,064/-. In addition, the assessing officer also disallowed certain expenses towards cost of improvement of the aforesaid land sold during the year under consideration while computing the capital gain amounting to Rs.1,54,07,417/- The Assessing Officer held that since the assessee was equal co-owner of such property

LATE BHAGWATSINH JIBHUBHAI CHAVDA)L/H.BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1075/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R
Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

short term capital gains comes to Rs. 1,72,04,064/-. In addition, the assessing officer also disallowed certain expenses towards cost of improvement of the aforesaid land sold during the year under consideration while computing the capital gain amounting to Rs.1,54,07,417/- The Assessing Officer held that since the assessee was equal co-owner of such property

BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA, (L/H OF LATE BHAGWATSINH J CHAVDA),AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 511/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R
Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

short term capital gains comes to Rs. 1,72,04,064/-. In addition, the assessing officer also disallowed certain expenses towards cost of improvement of the aforesaid land sold during the year under consideration while computing the capital gain amounting to Rs.1,54,07,417/- The Assessing Officer held that since the assessee was equal co-owner of such property

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI RANCHHODBHAI MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1076/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R
Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

short term capital gains comes to Rs. 1,72,04,064/-. In addition, the assessing officer also disallowed certain expenses towards cost of improvement of the aforesaid land sold during the year under consideration while computing the capital gain amounting to Rs.1,54,07,417/- The Assessing Officer held that since the assessee was equal co-owner of such property

JOGESHBHAI RAMANLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 115/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Jogeshbhai Ramanlal Patel The Pcit-3, C.A. Ashokkumar S. Gupta, C-411, Pratykash Kar 203/1, New Cloth Market, O/S. Bhavan, Ambawadi, Vs Raipur Gate, Raipur, Gujarat-380009 Ahmedagad-380002 [Pan No. : Aaxpp3232E] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. Respondent By : Shri A. P. Singh, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 06.09.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50C

short ‘LTCG’) should not be taken as Rs. 97,98,327/- without affording Cost Inflation Index as worked as under: Sr. No. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1. Value of land as per stamp duty paid 5,43,32,653 2. Value shown in sale deed 3,57,36,000 3. Long Term Capital Gain 1,85,96,653 4. Share

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

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

ITA 1991/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Pratap Singh CIT. D.R with Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.D.R
Section 41(1)Section 54F

short span of time, it is also not possible that the property price will jump to that extent until and unless some material is available on record. Even at the time of hearing, a question was put up to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee about the value of the land for the purpose of Stamp duty

SHRI CHAITANYA BANSIBHAI. NAGORI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-4, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 377/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Shri P. B. Parmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: 05/05/2022
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194ISection 263Section 56(2)(vii)

short) dated 25.03.2020 arising in the assessment order dated 10.08.2017 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY. 2015-16. ITA No. 377/Ahd/2020 [Shri Chaitanya Bansibhai Vs. PCIT] A.Y. 2015-16 - 2 - 2. The ground of appeal raised by assessee reads as under: “1. On the facts

ARVIND LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI PRESENT JURISDICTION THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 349/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamblearvind Limited, Dcit Vs. Naroda Road, Nfac, Delhi Ahmedabad-380025 (Dcit, Circle 1(1)(1), [Pan : Aabca 2398 D] Ahmedabad) Arvind Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1(1)(1), Naroda Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380025 [Pan : Aabca 2398 D]

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, AR &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

short] dated 23.01.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. Since the issues are common and appeals are inter-connected, the same are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 349 & 466/Ahd/2024 Assessee : Arvind Limited Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 2– 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ARVIND LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 466/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamblearvind Limited, Dcit Vs. Naroda Road, Nfac, Delhi Ahmedabad-380025 (Dcit, Circle 1(1)(1), [Pan : Aabca 2398 D] Ahmedabad) Arvind Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1(1)(1), Naroda Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380025 [Pan : Aabca 2398 D]

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, AR &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

short] dated 23.01.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. Since the issues are common and appeals are inter-connected, the same are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 349 & 466/Ahd/2024 Assessee : Arvind Limited Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 2– 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1093/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri P. F. Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R
Section 234Section 54BSection 68

short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 31.10.2023 in the case of Late Smt. Ramilaben Harshadrai Patel (through L/h. son Devraj H. Patel in ITA No. 1092/Ahd/2023) & by the assessee in the case of Devraj Harshadrai Patel (in ITA No. 1093/Ahd/2023) and the Department (in ITA No. 93/Ahd/2024 against the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2016-17 dated

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 93/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri P. F. Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R
Section 234Section 54BSection 68

short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 31.10.2023 in the case of Late Smt. Ramilaben Harshadrai Patel (through L/h. son Devraj H. Patel in ITA No. 1092/Ahd/2023) & by the assessee in the case of Devraj Harshadrai Patel (in ITA No. 1093/Ahd/2023) and the Department (in ITA No. 93/Ahd/2024 against the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2016-17 dated

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

ITA 1092/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri P. F. Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R
Section 234Section 54BSection 68

short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 31.10.2023 in the case of Late Smt. Ramilaben Harshadrai Patel (through L/h. son Devraj H. Patel in ITA No. 1092/Ahd/2023) & by the assessee in the case of Devraj Harshadrai Patel (in ITA No. 1093/Ahd/2023) and the Department (in ITA No. 93/Ahd/2024 against the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2016-17 dated

NIRAJ PRATAPBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(2)(FORMERLY ITO, WARD-3(3)(3)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 87/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Fofaria, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

TDS credit of Rs. 42,830/- while calculating demand of Rs. 2,32,474/-. 6. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the learned AO in levying interest u/s. 234A/B/C/D of the Act. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case

NIRAJ PRATAPBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(3)(2), (FORMERLY ITO, WARD-3(3)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 85/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Fofaria, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

TDS credit of Rs. 42,830/- while calculating demand of Rs. 2,32,474/-. 6. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the learned AO in levying interest u/s. 234A/B/C/D of the Act. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case