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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271AAA of the Act. 12. In the result, this ground of the assessee is dismissed. The next issue for consideration is regarding levy of penalty with respect to protective addition made in the hands of undisclosed capital gain amounting to Rs. 1,48,00,000/- 13. The brief facts relating to this ground of appeal are that the Assessing

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271AAA of the Act. 12. In the result, this ground of the assessee is dismissed. The next issue for consideration is regarding levy of penalty with respect to protective addition made in the hands of undisclosed capital gain amounting to Rs. 1,48,00,000/- 13. The brief facts relating to this ground of appeal are that the Assessing

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271AAA of the Act. 12. In the result, this ground of the assessee is dismissed. The next issue for consideration is regarding levy of penalty with respect to protective addition made in the hands of undisclosed capital gain amounting to Rs. 1,48,00,000/- 13. The brief facts relating to this ground of appeal are that the Assessing

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271AAA of the Act. 12. In the result, this ground of the assessee is dismissed. The next issue for consideration is regarding levy of penalty with respect to protective addition made in the hands of undisclosed capital gain amounting to Rs. 1,48,00,000/- 13. The brief facts relating to this ground of appeal are that the Assessing

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271AAA of the Act. 12. In the result, this ground of the assessee is dismissed. The next issue for consideration is regarding levy of penalty with respect to protective addition made in the hands of undisclosed capital gain amounting to Rs. 1,48,00,000/- 13. The brief facts relating to this ground of appeal are that the Assessing

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271AAA of the Act. 12. In the result, this ground of the assessee is dismissed. The next issue for consideration is regarding levy of penalty with respect to protective addition made in the hands of undisclosed capital gain amounting to Rs. 1,48,00,000/- 13. The brief facts relating to this ground of appeal are that the Assessing

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271AAA of the Act. 12. In the result, this ground of the assessee is dismissed. The next issue for consideration is regarding levy of penalty with respect to protective addition made in the hands of undisclosed capital gain amounting to Rs. 1,48,00,000/- 13. The brief facts relating to this ground of appeal are that the Assessing

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271AAA of the Act. 12. In the result, this ground of the assessee is dismissed. The next issue for consideration is regarding levy of penalty with respect to protective addition made in the hands of undisclosed capital gain amounting to Rs. 1,48,00,000/- 13. The brief facts relating to this ground of appeal are that the Assessing

PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

capital expenditure as an application of income under section 11 of the Act. 6. The Ld.Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, relied on the order of the AO and stated that extrapolation is legal when there is information available to rely upon with evidence. He further stated that there are circumstances to prove that the assessee trust was involved

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST, , AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

capital expenditure as an application of income under section 11 of the Act. 6. The Ld.Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, relied on the order of the AO and stated that extrapolation is legal when there is information available to rely upon with evidence. He further stated that there are circumstances to prove that the assessee trust was involved

PARUL UNIVERSITY,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT,EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

capital expenditure as an application of income under section 11 of the Act. 6. The Ld.Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, relied on the order of the AO and stated that extrapolation is legal when there is information available to rely upon with evidence. He further stated that there are circumstances to prove that the assessee trust was involved

PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

capital expenditure as an application of income under section 11 of the Act. 6. The Ld.Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, relied on the order of the AO and stated that extrapolation is legal when there is information available to rely upon with evidence. He further stated that there are circumstances to prove that the assessee trust was involved

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

capital expenditure as an application of income under section 11 of the Act. 6. The Ld.Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, relied on the order of the AO and stated that extrapolation is legal when there is information available to rely upon with evidence. He further stated that there are circumstances to prove that the assessee trust was involved

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.

Capital gains) - Assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 - Whether where land sold by assessee was held to be non-agricultural land, and, thus, was not exempt from tax and assessee was consciously aware of real position and knowingly furnished inaccurate particulars of income in return that land sold was an agricultural land, there was willful concealment and, thus, penalty

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.

Capital gains) - Assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 - Whether where land sold by assessee was held to be non-agricultural land, and, thus, was not exempt from tax and assessee was consciously aware of real position and knowingly furnished inaccurate particulars of income in return that land sold was an agricultural land, there was willful concealment and, thus, penalty

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.

Capital gains) - Assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 - Whether where land sold by assessee was held to be non-agricultural land, and, thus, was not exempt from tax and assessee was consciously aware of real position and knowingly furnished inaccurate particulars of income in return that land sold was an agricultural land, there was willful concealment and, thus, penalty

THE ACIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI CHANDRAKANT G PATEL, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

13. The A.O. has also invoked explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act have two parts, Part-A of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) provides that if the assessee fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found

THE ACIT,(OSD)CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. TORRENT POWER LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross-objection of the assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Amarjit Singh

13) In the present case, the capital asset in question (Flat No. 1202-A) was originally acquired by the previous owner (daughter) on 29/1/1993 and the same was acquired by the assessee under a gift deed dated 2/J/2003 without incurring any cost. The assessee sold the said capital asset on. 30/6/2003 for Rs.1,10,00,000/-. Since the assessee held