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

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

section 144B of the Act. 2. Condonation of Delay 2.1 At the threshold, it is noticed that the appeals for the Assessment

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

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

section 144B of the Act. 2. Condonation of Delay 2.1 At the threshold, it is noticed that the appeals for the Assessment

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

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

section 144B of the Act. 2. Condonation of Delay 2.1 At the threshold, it is noticed that the appeals for the Assessment

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

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

section 144B of the Act. 2. Condonation of Delay 2.1 At the threshold, it is noticed that the appeals for the Assessment

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

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

section 144B of the Act. 2. Condonation of Delay 2.1 At the threshold, it is noticed that the appeals for the Assessment

BHIKHABHAI SOMABHAI PATEL,SABARKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), the other appeal lies against order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty under Section 270A of the Act on the addition made to the income of the assessee in the quantum proceedings. 2. Issues involved in both the appeals being interrelated they were

BHIKHABHAI SOMABHAI PATEL,SABARKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1,, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), the other appeal lies against order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty under Section 270A of the Act on the addition made to the income of the assessee in the quantum proceedings. 2. Issues involved in both the appeals being interrelated they were

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

144B of the Act on 24.03.2023 and treated cash deposits aggregating to Rs.186,78,95,978/- as unexplained money under section 69A ITA Nos. 2612 to 2616/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2018-19 - 5– of the Act, time deposits of Rs.272,59,22,944/- as unexplained investments under section

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

144B of the Act on 24.03.2023 and treated cash deposits aggregating to Rs.186,78,95,978/- as unexplained money under section 69A ITA Nos. 2612 to 2616/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2018-19 - 5– of the Act, time deposits of Rs.272,59,22,944/- as unexplained investments under section

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

144B of the Act on 24.03.2023 and treated cash deposits aggregating to Rs.186,78,95,978/- as unexplained money under section 69A ITA Nos. 2612 to 2616/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2018-19 - 5– of the Act, time deposits of Rs.272,59,22,944/- as unexplained investments under section

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

144B of the Act on 24.03.2023 and treated cash deposits aggregating to Rs.186,78,95,978/- as unexplained money under section 69A ITA Nos. 2612 to 2616/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2018-19 - 5– of the Act, time deposits of Rs.272,59,22,944/- as unexplained investments under section

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

144B of the Act on 24.03.2023 and treated cash deposits aggregating to Rs.186,78,95,978/- as unexplained money under section 69A ITA Nos. 2612 to 2616/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2018-19 - 5– of the Act, time deposits of Rs.272,59,22,944/- as unexplained investments under section

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 144B of the Act. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 19,22,696/- thereby treating the business turnover of the assessee and estimated income at 8% of the same. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs. 18,70,300/- regarding purchase of motor vehicle and treating the same as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. Being

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 144B of the Act. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 19,22,696/- thereby treating the business turnover of the assessee and estimated income at 8% of the same. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs. 18,70,300/- regarding purchase of motor vehicle and treating the same as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. Being

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 144B of the Act. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 19,22,696/- thereby treating the business turnover of the assessee and estimated income at 8% of the same. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs. 18,70,300/- regarding purchase of motor vehicle and treating the same as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. Being

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 144B of the Act. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 19,22,696/- thereby treating the business turnover of the assessee and estimated income at 8% of the same. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs. 18,70,300/- regarding purchase of motor vehicle and treating the same as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. Being

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 144B of the Act. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 19,22,696/- thereby treating the business turnover of the assessee and estimated income at 8% of the same. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs. 18,70,300/- regarding purchase of motor vehicle and treating the same as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. Being

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 144B of the Act. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 19,22,696/- thereby treating the business turnover of the assessee and estimated income at 8% of the same. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs. 18,70,300/- regarding purchase of motor vehicle and treating the same as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. Being

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 144B of the Act. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 19,22,696/- thereby treating the business turnover of the assessee and estimated income at 8% of the same. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs. 18,70,300/- regarding purchase of motor vehicle and treating the same as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. Being