AMRISH SOMABHAI DESAI,MEHSANA vs. ITO, WARD 5, MEHSANA, KADI, MEHSANA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

272A(1)(d) of the Act. 2. Issues involved in both the appeals being interrelated they were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 3. We shall first deal with the assessee’s appeal in quantum proceedings in ITA No.1751/Ahd/2025. 4. Ground of appeal no.1 raised

AMRISH SOMABHAI DESAI,KADI, MEHSANA vs. ITO, WARD-5, MEHSANA, KADI, MEHSANA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

272A(1)(d) of the Act. 2. Issues involved in both the appeals being interrelated they were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 3. We shall first deal with the assessee’s appeal in quantum proceedings in ITA No.1751/Ahd/2025. 4. Ground of appeal no.1 raised

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

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

SAHEB INDUSTRIES,ANKLESHWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gains on such sale of plots and also denied part of the exemption claimed under Section 54G of the Act and thereby assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 5,93,02,872/-. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer observed that there was consistent non-compliance on part of the assessee and accordingly, proceedings under Section

TRUSHA VRAJENDRA SANGHAVI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 5(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years:2018-19

272A(1)(d) of the Act. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming action of initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal