YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

delay in filing of all five appeals is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Facts of the Case 4.1 The facts, as emerging from the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), are substantially common across all the assessment years under consideration. 4.2 The assessee is an individual engaged in small business

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

delay in filing of all five appeals is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Facts of the Case 4.1 The facts, as emerging from the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), are substantially common across all the assessment years under consideration. 4.2 The assessee is an individual engaged in small business

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

delay in filing of all five appeals is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Facts of the Case 4.1 The facts, as emerging from the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), are substantially common across all the assessment years under consideration. 4.2 The assessee is an individual engaged in small business

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

delay in filing of all five appeals is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Facts of the Case 4.1 The facts, as emerging from the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), are substantially common across all the assessment years under consideration. 4.2 The assessee is an individual engaged in small business

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

delay in filing of all five appeals is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Facts of the Case 4.1 The facts, as emerging from the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), are substantially common across all the assessment years under consideration. 4.2 The assessee is an individual engaged in small business

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ It(Ss)A No. 45 & Ita No.204/Ahd/2020 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 Rohitji Chanduji Thakore Dcit, Cent.Cir.2(1) Chandanami Nivas Vs Ahmedabad. Thakor Vas, Ambali Gam Ahmedabad. Pan : Adtpt 4435 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Adv Parimal Singh B. Parmar, Ar Shri Vijay Govani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Virendra Ojha, Cit-Dr

condone the delay and proceed to decided both the appeals on merit. 9. First we take IT(SS)A.No.45/Ahd/2020 (Quantum appeal): 10. In this appeal, the assessee has taken one additional ground of appeal, whereby he has pleaded as under: “The action of the ld.AO in framing the assessment u/s.153A r.w. section

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 28. The limited issue for consideration for the impugned assessment year is the levy of penalty of Rs. 59,34,456/- under Section

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 28. The limited issue for consideration for the impugned assessment year is the levy of penalty of Rs. 59,34,456/- under Section

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 28. The limited issue for consideration for the impugned assessment year is the levy of penalty of Rs. 59,34,456/- under Section

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 28. The limited issue for consideration for the impugned assessment year is the levy of penalty of Rs. 59,34,456/- under Section

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 28. The limited issue for consideration for the impugned assessment year is the levy of penalty of Rs. 59,34,456/- under Section

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 28. The limited issue for consideration for the impugned assessment year is the levy of penalty of Rs. 59,34,456/- under Section

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 28. The limited issue for consideration for the impugned assessment year is the levy of penalty of Rs. 59,34,456/- under Section

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 28. The limited issue for consideration for the impugned assessment year is the levy of penalty of Rs. 59,34,456/- under Section

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 28. The limited issue for consideration for the impugned assessment year is the levy of penalty of Rs. 59,34,456/- under Section

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ASHOK SUNDERDAS VASWANI, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condoned the delay and dismissed the special leave petition. 19.13 In Pr. CIT v. Index Securities (P.) Ltd. , [2017] 86 taxmann.com 84 (Delhi), on which reliance had been placed on behalf of the petitioners, the Delhi High Court has held thus: "28.4 The Supreme Court also agreed with the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel (supra

SHRI RAJESH SUNDERDAS VASWANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condoned the delay and dismissed the special leave petition. 19.13 In Pr. CIT v. Index Securities (P.) Ltd. , [2017] 86 taxmann.com 84 (Delhi), on which reliance had been placed on behalf of the petitioners, the Delhi High Court has held thus: "28.4 The Supreme Court also agreed with the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel (supra

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI DEEPAK KUMAR VASWANI,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condoned the delay and dismissed the special leave petition. 19.13 In Pr. CIT v. Index Securities (P.) Ltd. , [2017] 86 taxmann.com 84 (Delhi), on which reliance had been placed on behalf of the petitioners, the Delhi High Court has held thus: "28.4 The Supreme Court also agreed with the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel (supra