BHOGILAL BAHILALBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT -1, VADOADAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2015-16 Bhogilal Bhailalbhai Patel Vs. The Pr.Cit-1 475/2 Sagar Faliya Vadodara. At & Post Bhayali Vadodara 391 410. Pan : Bkkpp 3136 R

section 263of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short]for the Asst.Year 2015- 16. 2. At the outset, it was pointed out that the appeal filed by the assessee was time barred by 525 days, and an application for condonation of delay has been filed explaining the reasons for the delay in filing appeal

SHRI JIGNESH JAYSUKHLAL GHIYA,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT CIRLCE-4(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

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

delay of 672 days in filing the above appeal is hereby condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual and deriving income from Salary, House Property, Capital Gain and Other sources. For the Asst. Year 2013-14, assessee filed its belated Return of Income u/s. 139(1) on 26.03.2014 declaring total income

SAURABHBHAI ROHITBHAI MODI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIR. 5(2) NOW DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condone the delay in filing of appeal before us. On Merits: 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2009-10 on 19.03.2010 declaring a total income of Rs.35,23,540/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income

ROHITKUMAR CHINUBHAI MODI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIR. 5(2) NOW DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condone the delay in filing of appeal before us. On Merits: 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2009-10 on 19.03.2010 declaring a total income of Rs.35,23,540/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income

NOORMAHMEDBHAI HAJIBHAI MOMIN,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 54B of the Act claimed by the assessee, totaling to Rs.59,79,063/- and added the same to the income of the assessee. 4. In appeal, ld. CIT(A) observed that there is a delay of 192 days in filing of the present appeal. However, despite issuance of several notices, the assessee has failed to cause appearance

SHRI GOVINDBHAI HIMMATBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are allowed

delay in filing these appeals are condoned. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1.1 The order passed u/s 250 on 23.07.2018 for A.Y.2015-16 by CIT(A)-3, A'bad upholding addition of Rs.20 lacs towards capital gain is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred

SHRI ISHWARBHAI HIMMATBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are allowed

delay in filing these appeals are condoned. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1.1 The order passed u/s 250 on 23.07.2018 for A.Y.2015-16 by CIT(A)-3, A'bad upholding addition of Rs.20 lacs towards capital gain is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred