YUDO HOT RUNNERS INDIA PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER,NFAC, DELHI PRESENT JURIDICTION THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2015-16

2(24)(x) of the Act. After taking cognisance of the assessee’s submissions, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.1,21,467/- thereby stating that the assessee has evaded tax. 4. Being aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted

DIVERSIFIED SERVICES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

condoning the delay of 16 days in filing the appeal. 3. Now on merits, the brief facts of the case are that the assessee firm is engaged in providing manpower to different clients. The assessee filed its income tax return for assessment year 2019-20 under section 139(1) electronically declaring the total income of " 56,640/-. The return

SHRI MUKESH RASIKLAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9, NOW CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

x) of the l.T. Act, 1961. (v) In the instant case, the assessee held the amount of Rs.2,47,943/- and Rs.19,36,095/- pertaining to A.Yrs. 1992-93 and 1993-94 respectively illegally for number of years and instead of refunding the ill-gotten amount to Govt. account, the assessee chose to invest the money further as mentioned supra

SHRI MUKESH RASIKLAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9, NOW CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

x) of the l.T. Act, 1961. (v) In the instant case, the assessee held the amount of Rs.2,47,943/- and Rs.19,36,095/- pertaining to A.Yrs. 1992-93 and 1993-94 respectively illegally for number of years and instead of refunding the ill-gotten amount to Govt. account, the assessee chose to invest the money further as mentioned supra

M/S. RASNA PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

condone the delay in filing this appeal. ITA No. 1528/Ahd/2017 for A.Y. 2013-14 3. The fact of the case is that assessee filed return of income on 29th Nov, 2013 declaring total income at Rs. 12,28,38,184/-. The case was subject to scrutiny assessment and notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued

RASNA PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

condone the delay in filing this appeal. ITA No. 1528/Ahd/2017 for A.Y. 2013-14 3. The fact of the case is that assessee filed return of income on 29th Nov, 2013 declaring total income at Rs. 12,28,38,184/-. The case was subject to scrutiny assessment and notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued

KHIMJI RAMDAS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(2) PRESENT JURIDICTION THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.500/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Khimji Ramdas India Pvt. Ltd., The Ito, Ward-2(1)(2), 2Nd Floor, City Square Godrej Ahmedabad, Vs. Garden City, Jagatpur, Present Jurisdiction Ahmedabad-382470 The Dcit, Pan : Aadck 6056 C Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Aatish Shah, Ar & Shri Anil N. Shah, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Hishikes Hemant Patki, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short Referred To As “The Act”] Dated 12.05.2023 Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under:- “1. The Ld. Ao Wd. 2(1)(2) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Impugned Order Which Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed & The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Have Similarly Cit(A) Have Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Impugned Order Vide His Order Passed Us.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Appeal Vide His Order Dtd.12-05-2023 Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1052777862(1) Dtd. 12/05/2023. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts Without Considering/Adjudicating

x) of the Act out of the loss allowed to be carried forward of Rs.35,72.242 as per appeal effect to the CIT(A)'s order dtd.26.04.2018 and thereby restricted the said amount of carried forward loss at Rs.8,52,970 (Rs.35,72.242 - Rs.27,19,302). Considering the same, it can be seen that, the order passed

MAHAMADBHAI RAHEMANBHAI MAKWANA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 1543/Ahd/2024 & 1544/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Mahamadbhai Rahemanbhai The Ito बनाम/ Makwana Ward-3(1)(2) V/S. Prop. Of Master Platers Ahmedabad – 380 015 Udhyognagar Tavdipura, Shahibaug Ahmedabad – 380 004 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aktpm 2009 E अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

24,000/-. • Property 2: Purchased for Rs.7,41,000/-, with a stamp duty value of Rs.45,27,000/-. 2.1. The difference of Rs.43,10,000/- between the purchase consideration and the stamp duty value was treated as income from other sources under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act by AO, and an addition of Rs.43,10,000/- was made

MAHAMADBHAI RAHEMANBHAI MAKWANA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 1543/Ahd/2024 & 1544/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Mahamadbhai Rahemanbhai The Ito बनाम/ Makwana Ward-3(1)(2) V/S. Prop. Of Master Platers Ahmedabad – 380 015 Udhyognagar Tavdipura, Shahibaug Ahmedabad – 380 004 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aktpm 2009 E अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

24,000/-. • Property 2: Purchased for Rs.7,41,000/-, with a stamp duty value of Rs.45,27,000/-. 2.1. The difference of Rs.43,10,000/- between the purchase consideration and the stamp duty value was treated as income from other sources under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act by AO, and an addition of Rs.43,10,000/- was made

VOLARK LEASING IFSC PVT. LTD,GUJARAT vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR, GUJARAT, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

24 days. The assessees claim of deduction of profits earned in terms of Section 80LA of the Act amounting to Rs. 6,74,86,150/- was denied in the intimation made under Section 143(1) of the Act by the CPC on account of the fact stated above of delay in filing Form 10CCF. The order

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

x 5264.79 sq. yards) and accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- in respect of undisclosed consideration on sale of land. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the quantum additions in the hands of the assessee. The assessee filed appeal before ITAT against the order of Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 27.12.2017 restored

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

x 5264.79 sq. yards) and accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- in respect of undisclosed consideration on sale of land. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the quantum additions in the hands of the assessee. The assessee filed appeal before ITAT against the order of Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 27.12.2017 restored

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

x 5264.79 sq. yards) and accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- in respect of undisclosed consideration on sale of land. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the quantum additions in the hands of the assessee. The assessee filed appeal before ITAT against the order of Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 27.12.2017 restored

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

x 5264.79 sq. yards) and accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- in respect of undisclosed consideration on sale of land. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the quantum additions in the hands of the assessee. The assessee filed appeal before ITAT against the order of Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 27.12.2017 restored

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

x 5264.79 sq. yards) and accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- in respect of undisclosed consideration on sale of land. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the quantum additions in the hands of the assessee. The assessee filed appeal before ITAT against the order of Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 27.12.2017 restored

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

x 5264.79 sq. yards) and accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- in respect of undisclosed consideration on sale of land. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the quantum additions in the hands of the assessee. The assessee filed appeal before ITAT against the order of Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 27.12.2017 restored

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

x 5264.79 sq. yards) and accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- in respect of undisclosed consideration on sale of land. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the quantum additions in the hands of the assessee. The assessee filed appeal before ITAT against the order of Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 27.12.2017 restored

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

x 5264.79 sq. yards) and accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- in respect of undisclosed consideration on sale of land. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the quantum additions in the hands of the assessee. The assessee filed appeal before ITAT against the order of Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 27.12.2017 restored