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

Appeal is dismissed

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

capital gain. Thus the ground of appeal is partly allowed. 6. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by ld. CIT(A), confirming the disallowance of certain expenses towards cost of improvement. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that so far as land leveling

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

Appeal is dismissed

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

capital gain. Thus the ground of appeal is partly allowed. 6. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by ld. CIT(A), confirming the disallowance of certain expenses towards cost of improvement. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that so far as land leveling

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

Appeal is dismissed

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

capital gain. Thus the ground of appeal is partly allowed. 6. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by ld. CIT(A), confirming the disallowance of certain expenses towards cost of improvement. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that so far as land leveling

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

cash deposit and remaining amount offered under the head short- term capital gain. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under section

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

cash deposit and remaining amount offered under the head short- term capital gain. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under section

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

cash deposit and remaining amount offered under the head short- term capital gain. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under section

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

deposit has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee. And also the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.49,00,000 & Rs.1,89,43,840 on account of undisclosed capital gain on Land Block No. 325 & 485A respectively which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

deposit has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee. And also the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.49,00,000 & Rs.1,89,43,840 on account of undisclosed capital gain on Land Block No. 325 & 485A respectively which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

deposit has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee. And also the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.49,00,000 & Rs.1,89,43,840 on account of undisclosed capital gain on Land Block No. 325 & 485A respectively which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

deposit has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee. And also the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.49,00,000 & Rs.1,89,43,840 on account of undisclosed capital gain on Land Block No. 325 & 485A respectively which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

deposit has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee. And also the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.49,00,000 & Rs.1,89,43,840 on account of undisclosed capital gain on Land Block No. 325 & 485A respectively which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

deposit has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee. And also the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.49,00,000 & Rs.1,89,43,840 on account of undisclosed capital gain on Land Block No. 325 & 485A respectively which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

deposit has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee. And also the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.49,00,000 & Rs.1,89,43,840 on account of undisclosed capital gain on Land Block No. 325 & 485A respectively which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

deposit has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee. And also the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.49,00,000 & Rs.1,89,43,840 on account of undisclosed capital gain on Land Block No. 325 & 485A respectively which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

deposit has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee. And also the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.49,00,000 & Rs.1,89,43,840 on account of undisclosed capital gain on Land Block No. 325 & 485A respectively which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. REKHA INDRAVADAN CHOKSHI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Department’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

cash that was deposited in the assessee’s various bank accounts. 14. In the case of Sumati Dayal vs. Ld. CIT(A) 214 ITR 801 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stressed upon the surrounding circumstances and application of test of human probabilities in the given set of facts in the following words:- “The transaction about purchase of winning

REKHABEN INDRAVADAN CHOKSHI,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-5(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Department’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

cash that was deposited in the assessee’s various bank accounts. 14. In the case of Sumati Dayal vs. Ld. CIT(A) 214 ITR 801 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stressed upon the surrounding circumstances and application of test of human probabilities in the given set of facts in the following words:- “The transaction about purchase of winning

NAMAN HEMANTBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18

cash deposits made during the earlier period as explained. 6. Per contra, Ms. Urvashi Mandhan, Ld. Sr. DR submitted that during the year the assessee had income from Short Term Capital Gain