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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain under ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 section 48 of the Act. He simply construed rough paper as a gospel truth. It is also pertinent to note that he has taken into consideration that land in block no.76 must have been purchased and sold

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain under ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 section 48 of the Act. He simply construed rough paper as a gospel truth. It is also pertinent to note that he has taken into consideration that land in block no.76 must have been purchased and sold

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain under ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 section 48 of the Act. He simply construed rough paper as a gospel truth. It is also pertinent to note that he has taken into consideration that land in block no.76 must have been purchased and sold

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain under ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 section 48 of the Act. He simply construed rough paper as a gospel truth. It is also pertinent to note that he has taken into consideration that land in block no.76 must have been purchased and sold

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain under ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 section 48 of the Act. He simply construed rough paper as a gospel truth. It is also pertinent to note that he has taken into consideration that land in block no.76 must have been purchased and sold

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain under ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 section 48 of the Act. He simply construed rough paper as a gospel truth. It is also pertinent to note that he has taken into consideration that land in block no.76 must have been purchased and sold

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain under ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 section 48 of the Act. He simply construed rough paper as a gospel truth. It is also pertinent to note that he has taken into consideration that land in block no.76 must have been purchased and sold

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), AHMEDABAD vs. DARSHANBHAI MANUBHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 292C of the I.T. Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the AO. ACIT vs. Darshanbhai Manubhai Patel Asst.Year –2017-18 - 2– 4. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that