THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA vs. M/S. NEOTECH EDUCATION FOUNDATION, VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2014-15

depreciation TOTAL 4,06,21,446 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the Tribunal vide order dated 13.01.2022 granted relief of Rs.3,96,31,306/- and sustained the addition of Rs.9,90,140/-. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has not made any concealment of income or furnished any inaccurate particulars of income as envisaged under Section

M/S. NEOTECH EDUCATION FOUNDATION,VADODARA vs. THE JT.CIT, CENTRAL RANGE, VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2014-15

depreciation TOTAL 4,06,21,446 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the Tribunal vide order dated 13.01.2022 granted relief of Rs.3,96,31,306/- and sustained the addition of Rs.9,90,140/-. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has not made any concealment of income or furnished any inaccurate particulars of income as envisaged under Section

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

271D and 271E of the Act dated 24/09/2013 respectively. I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 2 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO ITA No. 1030 & 1032/Ahd/2013 A.Ys. 2003-04 & 2004-05: 2. Since the facts and the issues under consideration in both the appeals are identical we shall first

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

271D and 271E of the Act dated 24/09/2013 respectively. I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 2 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO ITA No. 1030 & 1032/Ahd/2013 A.Ys. 2003-04 & 2004-05: 2. Since the facts and the issues under consideration in both the appeals are identical we shall first

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

271D and 271E of the Act dated 24/09/2013 respectively. I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 2 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO ITA No. 1030 & 1032/Ahd/2013 A.Ys. 2003-04 & 2004-05: 2. Since the facts and the issues under consideration in both the appeals are identical we shall first

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

271D and 271E of the Act dated 24/09/2013 respectively. I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 2 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO ITA No. 1030 & 1032/Ahd/2013 A.Ys. 2003-04 & 2004-05: 2. Since the facts and the issues under consideration in both the appeals are identical we shall first

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

271D and 271E of the Act dated 24/09/2013 respectively. I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 2 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO ITA No. 1030 & 1032/Ahd/2013 A.Ys. 2003-04 & 2004-05: 2. Since the facts and the issues under consideration in both the appeals are identical we shall first

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

271D and 271E of the Act dated 24/09/2013 respectively. I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 2 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO ITA No. 1030 & 1032/Ahd/2013 A.Ys. 2003-04 & 2004-05: 2. Since the facts and the issues under consideration in both the appeals are identical we shall first