CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

bogus in nature. Thus, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer was correct and there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT(OSD) Asst.Years–2009-10, 2010-11, 2008-09, 2014-15 & 2015-16 49. We have heard both the parties and perused

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

bogus in nature. Thus, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer was correct and there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT(OSD) Asst.Years–2009-10, 2010-11, 2008-09, 2014-15 & 2015-16 49. We have heard both the parties and perused

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(OSD),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

bogus in nature. Thus, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer was correct and there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT(OSD) Asst.Years–2009-10, 2010-11, 2008-09, 2014-15 & 2015-16 49. We have heard both the parties and perused

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

bogus in nature. Thus, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer was correct and there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT(OSD) Asst.Years–2009-10, 2010-11, 2008-09, 2014-15 & 2015-16 49. We have heard both the parties and perused

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

bogus in nature. Thus, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer was correct and there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT(OSD) Asst.Years–2009-10, 2010-11, 2008-09, 2014-15 & 2015-16 49. We have heard both the parties and perused

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

bogus in nature. Thus, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer was correct and there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT(OSD) Asst.Years–2009-10, 2010-11, 2008-09, 2014-15 & 2015-16 49. We have heard both the parties and perused

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

bogus in nature. Thus, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer was correct and there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT(OSD) Asst.Years–2009-10, 2010-11, 2008-09, 2014-15 & 2015-16 49. We have heard both the parties and perused

ARVIND AMBALAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1) (OLD WARD-5(2)(2)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2017-18

272A(1)(d) of the act also issued. The details were furrnished on 18.11.2019 after issuing of two show cause notices. The Assessing Officer observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee’s status is an individual and he is proprietor of M/s. Gold Roof. The assessee is doing business activities i.e. trading of Gold, Gold Jewellery, Silver, Silvera

ALISHA PACKAGING INDUSTRIES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

272A(1)(d) of Rs.30,000/- each for the Asst. Years 2018-19 and 2019-20. 3. Aggrieved against the above orders, the assessee filed appeals before Ld. CIT(A) with condonation delay for the quantum appeals which was condoned by Ld. CIT(A). As the assessee failed to respond to the hearing notices dated

ALISHA PACKAGING INDUSTRIES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

272A(1)(d) of Rs.30,000/- each for the Asst. Years 2018-19 and 2019-20. 3. Aggrieved against the above orders, the assessee filed appeals before Ld. CIT(A) with condonation delay for the quantum appeals which was condoned by Ld. CIT(A). As the assessee failed to respond to the hearing notices dated

ALISHA PACKAGING INDUSTRIES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

272A(1)(d) of Rs.30,000/- each for the Asst. Years 2018-19 and 2019-20. 3. Aggrieved against the above orders, the assessee filed appeals before Ld. CIT(A) with condonation delay for the quantum appeals which was condoned by Ld. CIT(A). As the assessee failed to respond to the hearing notices dated

ALISHA PACKAGING INDUSTRIES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

272A(1)(d) of Rs.30,000/- each for the Asst. Years 2018-19 and 2019-20. 3. Aggrieved against the above orders, the assessee filed appeals before Ld. CIT(A) with condonation delay for the quantum appeals which was condoned by Ld. CIT(A). As the assessee failed to respond to the hearing notices dated

ALISHA PACKAGING INDUSTRIES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

272A(1)(d) of Rs.30,000/- each for the Asst. Years 2018-19 and 2019-20. 3. Aggrieved against the above orders, the assessee filed appeals before Ld. CIT(A) with condonation delay for the quantum appeals which was condoned by Ld. CIT(A). As the assessee failed to respond to the hearing notices dated

ALISHA PACKAGING INDUSTRIES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

272A(1)(d) of Rs.30,000/- each for the Asst. Years 2018-19 and 2019-20. 3. Aggrieved against the above orders, the assessee filed appeals before Ld. CIT(A) with condonation delay for the quantum appeals which was condoned by Ld. CIT(A). As the assessee failed to respond to the hearing notices dated

THE ITO, WARD-9(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE PARSHWANATH CORPORATION,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.872/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1693/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11) 1. The Income Tax 1.Shree Parshwanath बनाम/ Corporation Officer, Ward-9(1) Vs. 50, 3Rd Floor Ahmedabad Harisiddh Chambers Ashram Road Ahmedabad-380 014 2. Shree Parshwanath 2. Income-Tax Officer Ward-9(1) Corporation, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfs 3093 C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellants) (""यथ" / Respondents) Assessee By : Ms. Arti Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr

D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned cross-appeals have been filed by the Assessee and the Revenue against the common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–Ahmedabad-5, [CIT(A) in short] vide appeal no.CIT(A)- XV/ITO.9(1)/18/2013-14 and now CIT(A)-5/Wd.9(1)/121/2014-15 dated 02/03/2015 arising in the assessment order

M/S. SHREE PARSHWANATH CORPORATION,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.872/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1693/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11) 1. The Income Tax 1.Shree Parshwanath बनाम/ Corporation Officer, Ward-9(1) Vs. 50, 3Rd Floor Ahmedabad Harisiddh Chambers Ashram Road Ahmedabad-380 014 2. Shree Parshwanath 2. Income-Tax Officer Ward-9(1) Corporation, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfs 3093 C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellants) (""यथ" / Respondents) Assessee By : Ms. Arti Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr

D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned cross-appeals have been filed by the Assessee and the Revenue against the common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–Ahmedabad-5, [CIT(A) in short] vide appeal no.CIT(A)- XV/ITO.9(1)/18/2013-14 and now CIT(A)-5/Wd.9(1)/121/2014-15 dated 02/03/2015 arising in the assessment order