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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Capital Gain (in short “STCG”) in the hands of the assessee towards sale of this land. In view of this additions, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 29,16,360/- under Section 271(1

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Capital Gain (in short “STCG”) in the hands of the assessee towards sale of this land. In view of this additions, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 29,16,360/- under Section 271(1

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Capital Gain (in short “STCG”) in the hands of the assessee towards sale of this land. In view of this additions, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 29,16,360/- under Section 271(1

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Capital Gain (in short “STCG”) in the hands of the assessee towards sale of this land. In view of this additions, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 29,16,360/- under Section 271(1

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Capital Gain (in short “STCG”) in the hands of the assessee towards sale of this land. In view of this additions, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 29,16,360/- under Section 271(1

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Capital Gain (in short “STCG”) in the hands of the assessee towards sale of this land. In view of this additions, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 29,16,360/- under Section 271(1

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.

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Penalty For concealment of income (Capital gains) - Assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 - Whether

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.

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Penalty For concealment of income (Capital gains) - Assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 - Whether

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.

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Penalty For concealment of income (Capital gains) - Assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 - Whether

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

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

capital gain misunderstanding of deduction under section 54 and 54 F of the Ac. Thus, the explanation of the assessee was bonafide and under that facts and circumstances, section of 271(1

SMT. RASHIDABEN TAHER MORAWALA,GODHRA vs. THE DCIT, INT.-TAXA., BARODA

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

271(1) (c) of the Act is not justified 4.1. Ld. Counsel Mr. Bandish Soparkar appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessment order passed in the case is barred by time, because the reference made by the Assessing Officer under section 142A is bad and illegal and cannot claim extension of time under section 153 Explanation 1

SHRI JITENDRA P.VAGHELA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(3), AHMEDABAD

1) of the Act and as such, no penalty could be levied on the petitioner under section 271 (l)(c) of the Act for concealment of particulars of his income on the ground that, the petitioner had failed to furnish return of income for the year under consideration. The impugned order, therefore, being contrary to the provisions

RAOOF R DHANANI,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 406/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2005-2006 Anisha R. Dhanani, A.C.I.T., 281, 28Th Floor, Vs. Circle-1(1)(2) Kalpatru Heights, Vadodara. Dr. A.R. Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. Pan: Actpd3111C

capital gain vide order dated 31/03/2013. On appeal learned CIT-A upheld the additions of Rs. 40000 on account of unexplained loan and addition on account of low household expenses to the extent of Rs. 1,40,000/- only. 5. The AO with respect to such additions i.e. low household expenses of Rs. 1,40,000/- and unexplained cash credit

ANISHA R DHANANI,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 406/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2005-2006 Anisha R. Dhanani, A.C.I.T., 281, 28Th Floor, Vs. Circle-1(1)(2) Kalpatru Heights, Vadodara. Dr. A.R. Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. Pan: Actpd3111C

capital gain vide order dated 31/03/2013. On appeal learned CIT-A upheld the additions of Rs. 40000 on account of unexplained loan and addition on account of low household expenses to the extent of Rs. 1,40,000/- only. 5. The AO with respect to such additions i.e. low household expenses of Rs. 1,40,000/- and unexplained cash credit

RAOOF R DHANANI,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 406/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2005-2006 Anisha R. Dhanani, A.C.I.T., 281, 28Th Floor, Vs. Circle-1(1)(2) Kalpatru Heights, Vadodara. Dr. A.R. Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. Pan: Actpd3111C

capital gain vide order dated 31/03/2013. On appeal learned CIT-A upheld the additions of Rs. 40000 on account of unexplained loan and addition on account of low household expenses to the extent of Rs. 1,40,000/- only. 5. The AO with respect to such additions i.e. low household expenses of Rs. 1,40,000/- and unexplained cash credit

RAOOF R DHANANI,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE-1(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 406/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2005-2006 Anisha R. Dhanani, A.C.I.T., 281, 28Th Floor, Vs. Circle-1(1)(2) Kalpatru Heights, Vadodara. Dr. A.R. Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. Pan: Actpd3111C

capital gain vide order dated 31/03/2013. On appeal learned CIT-A upheld the additions of Rs. 40000 on account of unexplained loan and addition on account of low household expenses to the extent of Rs. 1,40,000/- only. 5. The AO with respect to such additions i.e. low household expenses of Rs. 1,40,000/- and unexplained cash credit

SHRI KISHOREBHAI BHIKHABHAI VIRANI,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHAVNAGAR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2299/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 Kishorkumar Bhikhabhai Virani, D.C.I.T., 57, Adarsh Society, Vs. Circle 1, Atawa Lines, Ahmedabad. Surat-395001. Pan: Aawpv1516G

capital gain of Rs. 2,44,97,161/- to the total income of the assessee vide order dated 8 December 2017. 3.2 The AO in the assessment order has also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1