SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 269T of the Act. So far as the question of time tag of 10 years is concerned, the ld. CIT(A) held that this is occasioned by the fact that the legal heir of the assessee himself filed the appeal after delay of 1600 days with a condonation

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 269T of the Act. So far as the question of time tag of 10 years is concerned, the ld. CIT(A) held that this is occasioned by the fact that the legal heir of the assessee himself filed the appeal after delay of 1600 days with a condonation

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 269T of the Act. So far as the question of time tag of 10 years is concerned, the ld. CIT(A) held that this is occasioned by the fact that the legal heir of the assessee himself filed the appeal after delay of 1600 days with a condonation

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 269T of the Act. So far as the question of time tag of 10 years is concerned, the ld. CIT(A) held that this is occasioned by the fact that the legal heir of the assessee himself filed the appeal after delay of 1600 days with a condonation

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 269T of the Act. So far as the question of time tag of 10 years is concerned, the ld. CIT(A) held that this is occasioned by the fact that the legal heir of the assessee himself filed the appeal after delay of 1600 days with a condonation

DCIT CIRCLE GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI UMIYA CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD LINCH, GANDHINAGAR

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

269T of the Act was found to be applicable by the AO, in this case. 5.1.4 However, after considering the facts of the case, the explanation furnished by the appellant, and the judicial precedents relied upon, I am of the view that the appellant has satisfactorily demonstrated the existence of a reasonable cause under section 273B for accepting cash deposits

DCIT, CIRCLE GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI UMIYA CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD LINCH, GANDHINAGAR

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

269T of the Act was found to be applicable by the AO, in this case. 5.1.4 However, after considering the facts of the case, the explanation furnished by the appellant, and the judicial precedents relied upon, I am of the view that the appellant has satisfactorily demonstrated the existence of a reasonable cause under section 273B for accepting cash deposits

MOHD TAHIR MOHD BASIR SHAIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. JCIT, RANGE-6(1),, AHMEDABADF

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year : 2010-11 Mohd Tahir Mohd Basir Shaikh Jcit, Range-6(1) 15, Gulista Vs Ahmedabad. Apartment, Lal Mill Char Rasta Rakhial Ahmedabad 380 021. Pan : Apyps 3093 J

condonation was filed by the assessee despite direction to do so. Even direction of the Registry to file legible copy of penalty order passed under section 271E of the Act, under challenge was not filed by the assessee. Appeal thereafter listed on several occasions starting from 7.2.2020 to 20.9.2022 and only two occasions i.e. 11.8.2021 and 26.10.2021 assessee’s representative