SHAILESH S. JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

short “Ld. CIT(A)”), Ahmedabad vide orders dated 15.09.2023 for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2012-13. Since common facts and issues for consideration are involved for all the assessees under consideration, all the appeals filed by the assessee are being taken up together. Condonation of Delay: 2. At the outset, we observe that the appeals filed by the assessee

SHAILESH SUBODHCHANDRA JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

short “Ld. CIT(A)”), Ahmedabad vide orders dated 15.09.2023 for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2012-13. Since common facts and issues for consideration are involved for all the assessees under consideration, all the appeals filed by the assessee are being taken up together. Condonation of Delay: 2. At the outset, we observe that the appeals filed by the assessee

SHAILESH SUBODHCHANDRA JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

short “Ld. CIT(A)”), Ahmedabad vide orders dated 15.09.2023 for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2012-13. Since common facts and issues for consideration are involved for all the assessees under consideration, all the appeals filed by the assessee are being taken up together. Condonation of Delay: 2. At the outset, we observe that the appeals filed by the assessee

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

short term capital gain of block no. 76 & 77 which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts that relevant capital gain has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee and accordingly levied penalty on the same by Assessing officer which has been upheld by CIT Appeal. 3. The appellant also request to honourable court for condonation

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

short term capital gain of block no. 76 & 77 which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts that relevant capital gain has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee and accordingly levied penalty on the same by Assessing officer which has been upheld by CIT Appeal. 3. The appellant also request to honourable court for condonation

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

short term capital gain of block no. 76 & 77 which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts that relevant capital gain has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee and accordingly levied penalty on the same by Assessing officer which has been upheld by CIT Appeal. 3. The appellant also request to honourable court for condonation

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

short term capital gain of block no. 76 & 77 which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts that relevant capital gain has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee and accordingly levied penalty on the same by Assessing officer which has been upheld by CIT Appeal. 3. The appellant also request to honourable court for condonation

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

short term capital gain of block no. 76 & 77 which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts that relevant capital gain has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee and accordingly levied penalty on the same by Assessing officer which has been upheld by CIT Appeal. 3. The appellant also request to honourable court for condonation

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

short term capital gain of block no. 76 & 77 which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts that relevant capital gain has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee and accordingly levied penalty on the same by Assessing officer which has been upheld by CIT Appeal. 3. The appellant also request to honourable court for condonation

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

short term capital gain of block no. 76 & 77 which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts that relevant capital gain has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee and accordingly levied penalty on the same by Assessing officer which has been upheld by CIT Appeal. 3. The appellant also request to honourable court for condonation

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

short term capital gain of block no. 76 & 77 which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts that relevant capital gain has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee and accordingly levied penalty on the same by Assessing officer which has been upheld by CIT Appeal. 3. The appellant also request to honourable court for condonation

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

short term capital gain of block no. 76 & 77 which has been added without considering & appreciating the facts that relevant capital gain has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee and accordingly levied penalty on the same by Assessing officer which has been upheld by CIT Appeal. 3. The appellant also request to honourable court for condonation

M/S. PRATHAM DEVELOPERS,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

In the result, Ground No.4 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in part

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 742/Ahd/2015, 3078 & 3077/Ahd/2016 With Cross Objection No. 76/Ahd/2015 & 9/Ahd/2017 & I.T.A. No. 3087/Ahd/2016 (In I.T.A. Nos. 742/Ahd/2015, 3078 & 3077/Ahd/2016) & ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14)

short), dated 25.11.2014, 23.08.2016 & 30.08.2016 arising in the respective assessment orders dated 18.03.2013, 04.03.2015 & 30.12.2015 ITA No. 747/Ahd/14 [M/s. Pratham Investments vs. DC IT] A.Y. 2005-06 - 2 – passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning assessment years 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2. The assessee has also

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. PRATHAM INVESTMENTS,, BARODA

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 742/Ahd/2015, 3078 & 3077/Ahd/2016 With Cross Objection No. 76/Ahd/2015 & 9/Ahd/2017 & I.T.A. No. 3087/Ahd/2016 (In I.T.A. Nos. 742/Ahd/2015, 3078 & 3077/Ahd/2016) & ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14)

short), dated 25.11.2014, 23.08.2016 & 30.08.2016 arising in the respective assessment orders dated 18.03.2013, 04.03.2015 & 30.12.2015 ITA No. 747/Ahd/14 [M/s. Pratham Investments vs. DC IT] A.Y. 2005-06 - 2 – passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning assessment years 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2. The assessee has also

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

SHREE VAIDEHI IMPEX PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 13.09.2024 passed for A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in computing long-term capital gains amounting to Rs. 2,86,99,314/- by wrongly adopting the indexed cost

TEXMAT AGENCIES PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s application for condonation of delay is hereby dismissed

gains. Accordingly, the AO imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to " 10,60,095/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. In appeal filed by the assessee against the aforesaid penalty order, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee with the following remarks: “8. I have carefully considered the penalty order, assessment

ALISHA PACKAGING INDUSTRIES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

short term capital loss, gain without confronting any material found and seized etc. statements recorded during search in case of Kushal Ltd. Group and therefore the assessment made is on the basis of hearsay. 8. The appellant prays that the delay in filing of appeal may kindly be condoned